Merrick Garland is either the most brilliant, disciplined, Attorney General ever for keeping the DOJ airtight with no leaks from the most consequential investigation in U.S. political history, OR a complete coward unwilling to defend the rule of law.
Will Hurd (who is he??) said: "...by 2024 the country will be forced to choose between two dug-in, do-nothing parties."
In spite of many Non-Trump conservatives who claim that Uncle Joe swung too far to the left, the Dems are not a "do-nothing" party. Dems are not controlled by the progressive/liberal wing.
Good middle-class Dem policy has been stymied by the ReTrumplican'ts in Congress, who only want to see non-white America fail as does their god-king, who sees himself as replacement for the one true God, (who, BTW, knows what a burner phone is.)
As a lifelong Cincinnatian, I'm very familiar with Phil Heimlich. My liberal preferences often diverge from his, but he would be a very worthy replacement for Warren Davidson.
I also think he's be a strong voice in opposition to the current attempt by Ohio Republicans to hijack the redistricting process underway in Ohio. It's a drama worthy of *way* more attention than it's getting in the national press. The NY Times has a good explainer (https://nyti.ms/3wIIibr); the latest fiasco happened in the last 24 hours (Ohio Capital Journal: https://bit.ly/3wJ6rOT).
Keep in mind that creating maps that fairly reflect Ohio voters' preferences over the past decade would still give Republicans the edge in this state. What Republicans are fighting for is to maintain their super majority. So far all that's delivered is increasingly partisan legislation and the biggest scandal in Ohio's history (and perhaps the largest, at the moment, in all 50 states: https://bit.ly/3uE4d0x).
In short, we're in a constitutional crisis in Ohio with no clear road ahead at the moment and no set districts for the May 3 primary. Whatever my policy disagreements with Heimlich, he'd be a welcome antidote to the crazy that's infected way too many Republican politicians, in Ohio and elsewhere.
Some pretty deft ignoring of history. Roll back to 1700 and look at Russia’s wars. I see that we have forgotten about Napoleon. Remember that the Russian Pacific fleet was destroyed by a sneak attack from Japan before war was officially declared. Sound familiar? Russia has not been plagued with bad soldiers. Just bad leaders.
Make the two fake people's republics real. Make Crimea another people's republic. The three would agree to the same terms regarding neutrality and offensive weapons as Ukraine would. They would have the ability to grant Russia access to the Black Sea just as Ukraine has granted Russia the ability to ship gas to the EU.
I'm sorry, Charlie, I could only read a bit of the Trump statement. I, just, I, damnit... WHO CARES?! Phil Mickelson can make a hole-in-one and no one cares.
Today while we're slapping backs and high fiving for spending billions on billions on the southern border, there is this (despite billions on billions for keeping non-white Christians [sic] in their places):
"J.D. Vance: Republicans Wouldn't Give Trump $4 Billion For A Border Wall, Just Gave Biden $14 Billion For Ukraine" [Actually Trump Inc. spent over 11 billion on that dinky piece of now easily breached debacle.]
Re: the 1/6 Plan. Let's not forget the piece where the Secret Service, at the command of a an ardently Trumpist agent, tried to whisk Pence to safety so that Chuck Grassley could take the gavel and execute the scheme. Grassley spilled the beans in a Roll Call inteview.
Some of Merrick Garland's former co-workers described him as a bit of the silent assassin type. He doesn't seek glory, doesn't make much noise, but he is very lethal for the bad guys.
Pretend you're a big shot prosecuting attorney. One who's in charge of a very large office with vast resources. You're in a position to initiate investigations / indictments / prosecutions. You're sitting in that big, overstuffed, comfy desk chair in your office, perusing the news of the day on the tube and in the newspaper and on the screen on your desk, the same as you've done daily for more than a year. You even occasionally look through your in-box to see what might be happening within the organization you're in charge of.
There's a copious number of indicators in all of these sources of very serious crimes that have occurred within your jurisdiction, reaching all the way back to a time well before you even got your job. Not proof, now mind you. Not 'legal, courtroom-ready proof. But definitely substantial and confirmed evidence.
The boss to whom you answer has no legal or ethical authority to direct you to initiate actions such as those forenamed, so, being a fairly `competent and ethical boss, he hasn't called up and said, "Get your ass up out of that chair and get on with it."
What do you do? The work required to check out that evidence may be a bit touchy and sensitive, requiring some extra effort to ensure it's done correctly. And even if it is, it may cause some controversy in some quarters, and you're a pretty low-key kind of guy. So, it all might be a bit taxing.
Well, it's a pretty darned comfortable chair. So, I guess you just fall asleep.
Perhaps the wrong public servant got saddled with that "Sleepy" sobriquet. It may just be a crapshoot on whether or not he sees that judge's "memo", or if he will rouse himself long enough to read it, much less do anything about it.
Yes. Yes, it is. And, I hope, way over the top, since I'd very much like to see something...anything...that would change my view of Garland. Which isn't that he's a bad guy in any way. But I don't see him as being, well, I'm not sure what he is. But it doesn't appear to me that he's exerting a lot of leadership at DOJ. And from a lot of things I've read and listened to in many different places - credible places, not quasi-legal armchair analysts with axes to grind or reputations to polish - I'm nowhere near alone in that view. True enough, we now have some convictions and numerous pleas from Jan. 6. But, where's the rest of the story...the one beyond the feet on the ground committing crimes inside and outside of the Capitol building itself? And the instances of apparent criminal activity that stretch back even farther than that?
I get it in one sense. If you're going to take a shot at a king, you'd better not miss. Likewise with former presidents and their high level staff / advisers, etc., to some degree at least. I'd really like to think the guy's just very quietly getting all his ducks in a row and the sights lined up properly. And if we see some kind of serious movement on that front by, oh, say the end of this year at the latest, I might just be inclined to write the guy a letter of apology. Otherwise...
The language of what I wrote is that of frustration, but the underlying view would only be reinforced for me if another January rolls around and nothing of any significance has happened. It's just a fact that sometimes good people end up in jobs they really aren't suited for.
In your defense...I would have been WAY more animated in my response prior to 2016. After seeing the last 5 years play out...I have a ton of doubts about our ability to prosecute the real criminals in our politics.
I know. I feel much the same, and it's damned frustrating. I find myself wondering if part of the problem isn't that there may be some significant cases worked up and fleshed out and maybe ready to go, but they aren't being prosecuted because they aren't total slam dunks, and there are political considerations involved. I'm not saying that's true, I'm just sayin' when you look at the totality of what's happened in the justice system the past 6 years, your mind may start to wander, and end up somewhere along the lines of where mine is now. Yeah, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but sometimes I look at it all and just think...WTF?!
3) Voting is largely non-rational and is based primarily on identity and how you feel things are going at the moment (not on how you think the other side would do)--and this is a FEELING, it is usually not data based;
3) polls much more than 90 days out from the actual election are actually kind of shite, because they lack the same context and events may play out in unexpected ways.
Polls have lost whatever value they once had. Does anyone, except the media, actually give a damn about them? Their questions are meaningless in any real context, tend to biased one way or another, and, whether they admit it, people lie. I've gotten a few in the mail and barely managed to resist the temptation to troll them. Instead, I ignore them.
I have worked with polling in the past (both creating and interpreting them). They still have value. The problem is that most people do not really understand polling and the media tends to misuse polling, compounding the error.
It would be better if they did not whip out a poll to support a point or argument. Polls aren't REALLY intended for that--they don't present that type of data in most cases unless very constrained and carefully constructed.
When voters are the type that think Trump should be tried for treason, but they would still vote for him over Biden...we are in dark territory. I would go back to bed, but I just made it so don't want to mess it up...
The chihuahua has started sleeping on the bed when I'm not home. :-) The 15-yr-old dachshund just sleeps under layers of blankets in his bed. I doubt he knows if I'm gone!
Whether DJT’s insanity following the 2020 election is a crime or not is immaterial to me because it’s probably impossible to litigate to a decision, given his wealth. In any case what matters most is keeping that person out of the White House, and preferably away from the National discourse, an impossibility because he will not shut-up and the press keeps poking him. Legality aside, there’s no doubt DJT and his enablers acted like ‘keystone cops’ and should be, at minimum, soundly rebuked and expelled from politics and especially government. That said, Mr. Sykes and other DJT haters, always fail to report the Machiavellian actions of the January 6th committee. It’s not just that they ask for documentation well beyond the investigation scope, to be used for political purposes, they leak in that way in which Democrats are expert. The Ginni Thomas leak is particularly infuriating. There’s no arguing that her association with the January 6 lunatics is foolhardy, but she has the right and she’s not he. It’s an attempt to sideline Justice Thomas from cases in which Dems hope that ‘wishy-washy’ Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh can be convinced or intimidated into voting their way. It’s straight from the Adam Schiff playbook!
TFG doesn't have nearly the financial resources of the Federal government if they have the will to pursue it.
TFG doesn't need the press to poke him... when he feels he is not getting enough attention he does something to get the attention, because he is an attention whore. He can't live w/o it.
If your wife is involved up to their eyeballs in an attempt to overturn a legal election, it is REALLY hard to believe that 1) you didn't know, and 2) you won't try and cover for her (thereby also covering for yourself).
Recusal isn't about whether YOU (the one considering it) think that you are compromised. It is whether a reasonable person would think you are compromised. I am a reasonable person and I believe that he is compromised enough that he should not be involved. There are a lot of other reasonable people that believe the same.
& by that measure, others too (including those pesky "Machiavellian Democrats") have the right to conclude that Thomas is compromised. His rulings on this matter (both from before and after the insurrection) certainly seem to show that as well.
Methinks Judge Carter gives TFG far too much credit for thought and insight. Making a case that TFG "knew" what he was urging is a very heavy lift. Most of what comes out of that small mouth is random BS lacking much coherence. If what comes out of the mouth is indicative of what goes on in the head, then it isn't likely that TFG could "know" whether his desired actions & outcomes are illegal or not. And that's the problem for DoJ in bringing charges. Even if TFG was advised that something he wanted wasn't kosher, would that even register in his mind? He assumed that the presidency was omnipotent, though it's really not. Proving illegal acts is easy. Proving intent is likely impossible in this case, especially given all the witnesses who "can't remember".
As Bolton said, and as I've long thought: With Trump, you never know if he believes what he says or it just serves his purposes to say it. IMO, he doesn't really draw a categorical distinction between what's true and what's good for himself. He often betrays a deeply self-centered view of right and wrong, and I suspect the same holds for true and false, in some measure.
He has, of course, spoken about the strategic value of repeating a fiction until people believe it. I think he might do the same thing withing himself: his narcissistic craving persuades him that the self-flattering take on everything is true. Or sometimes he might simply think that the difference between true and false is irrelevant. When he says something like "Nobody reads the Bible more than me," surely he must be aware that he doesn't really read the Bible at all. But in his warped psyche it doesn't matter whether his pronouncements are supported by fact -- only that he thinks they'll serve his desires.
“by 2024 the country will be forced to choose between two dug-in, do-nothing parties.”
One do-nothing party and Will Hurd isn’t going to even make it out of the starting gate.
Merrick Garland is either the most brilliant, disciplined, Attorney General ever for keeping the DOJ airtight with no leaks from the most consequential investigation in U.S. political history, OR a complete coward unwilling to defend the rule of law.
Lol...I'm hoping for the former!
Will Hurd (who is he??) said: "...by 2024 the country will be forced to choose between two dug-in, do-nothing parties."
In spite of many Non-Trump conservatives who claim that Uncle Joe swung too far to the left, the Dems are not a "do-nothing" party. Dems are not controlled by the progressive/liberal wing.
Good middle-class Dem policy has been stymied by the ReTrumplican'ts in Congress, who only want to see non-white America fail as does their god-king, who sees himself as replacement for the one true God, (who, BTW, knows what a burner phone is.)
As a lifelong Cincinnatian, I'm very familiar with Phil Heimlich. My liberal preferences often diverge from his, but he would be a very worthy replacement for Warren Davidson.
I also think he's be a strong voice in opposition to the current attempt by Ohio Republicans to hijack the redistricting process underway in Ohio. It's a drama worthy of *way* more attention than it's getting in the national press. The NY Times has a good explainer (https://nyti.ms/3wIIibr); the latest fiasco happened in the last 24 hours (Ohio Capital Journal: https://bit.ly/3wJ6rOT).
Keep in mind that creating maps that fairly reflect Ohio voters' preferences over the past decade would still give Republicans the edge in this state. What Republicans are fighting for is to maintain their super majority. So far all that's delivered is increasingly partisan legislation and the biggest scandal in Ohio's history (and perhaps the largest, at the moment, in all 50 states: https://bit.ly/3uE4d0x).
In short, we're in a constitutional crisis in Ohio with no clear road ahead at the moment and no set districts for the May 3 primary. Whatever my policy disagreements with Heimlich, he'd be a welcome antidote to the crazy that's infected way too many Republican politicians, in Ohio and elsewhere.
Some pretty deft ignoring of history. Roll back to 1700 and look at Russia’s wars. I see that we have forgotten about Napoleon. Remember that the Russian Pacific fleet was destroyed by a sneak attack from Japan before war was officially declared. Sound familiar? Russia has not been plagued with bad soldiers. Just bad leaders.
Mediators Proposal for Ukraine settlement:
Make the two fake people's republics real. Make Crimea another people's republic. The three would agree to the same terms regarding neutrality and offensive weapons as Ukraine would. They would have the ability to grant Russia access to the Black Sea just as Ukraine has granted Russia the ability to ship gas to the EU.
I'm sorry, Charlie, I could only read a bit of the Trump statement. I, just, I, damnit... WHO CARES?! Phil Mickelson can make a hole-in-one and no one cares.
Today while we're slapping backs and high fiving for spending billions on billions on the southern border, there is this (despite billions on billions for keeping non-white Christians [sic] in their places):
"J.D. Vance: Republicans Wouldn't Give Trump $4 Billion For A Border Wall, Just Gave Biden $14 Billion For Ukraine" [Actually Trump Inc. spent over 11 billion on that dinky piece of now easily breached debacle.]
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/03/21/jd_vance_republicans_wouldnt_give_trump_4_billion_for_a_border_wall_just_gave_biden_14_billion_for_ukraine.html
Further proof the GQP cesspool is unfathomably deep, dark, and vile.
PS And that Very Strong and Tremendous 11+ Billion Dollar Border Wall Brought to You by Trump Inc.?
"Trump's wall: Winds [30 mph] blow over section of US-Mexico border fence"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51307868
Re: the 1/6 Plan. Let's not forget the piece where the Secret Service, at the command of a an ardently Trumpist agent, tried to whisk Pence to safety so that Chuck Grassley could take the gavel and execute the scheme. Grassley spilled the beans in a Roll Call inteview.
Some of Merrick Garland's former co-workers described him as a bit of the silent assassin type. He doesn't seek glory, doesn't make much noise, but he is very lethal for the bad guys.
Hopefully that's what's going on here.
RE: Merrick Garland
Pretend you're a big shot prosecuting attorney. One who's in charge of a very large office with vast resources. You're in a position to initiate investigations / indictments / prosecutions. You're sitting in that big, overstuffed, comfy desk chair in your office, perusing the news of the day on the tube and in the newspaper and on the screen on your desk, the same as you've done daily for more than a year. You even occasionally look through your in-box to see what might be happening within the organization you're in charge of.
There's a copious number of indicators in all of these sources of very serious crimes that have occurred within your jurisdiction, reaching all the way back to a time well before you even got your job. Not proof, now mind you. Not 'legal, courtroom-ready proof. But definitely substantial and confirmed evidence.
The boss to whom you answer has no legal or ethical authority to direct you to initiate actions such as those forenamed, so, being a fairly `competent and ethical boss, he hasn't called up and said, "Get your ass up out of that chair and get on with it."
What do you do? The work required to check out that evidence may be a bit touchy and sensitive, requiring some extra effort to ensure it's done correctly. And even if it is, it may cause some controversy in some quarters, and you're a pretty low-key kind of guy. So, it all might be a bit taxing.
Well, it's a pretty darned comfortable chair. So, I guess you just fall asleep.
Perhaps the wrong public servant got saddled with that "Sleepy" sobriquet. It may just be a crapshoot on whether or not he sees that judge's "memo", or if he will rouse himself long enough to read it, much less do anything about it.
Wow...now that's a pretty darn cynical look at this situation.
Yes. Yes, it is. And, I hope, way over the top, since I'd very much like to see something...anything...that would change my view of Garland. Which isn't that he's a bad guy in any way. But I don't see him as being, well, I'm not sure what he is. But it doesn't appear to me that he's exerting a lot of leadership at DOJ. And from a lot of things I've read and listened to in many different places - credible places, not quasi-legal armchair analysts with axes to grind or reputations to polish - I'm nowhere near alone in that view. True enough, we now have some convictions and numerous pleas from Jan. 6. But, where's the rest of the story...the one beyond the feet on the ground committing crimes inside and outside of the Capitol building itself? And the instances of apparent criminal activity that stretch back even farther than that?
I get it in one sense. If you're going to take a shot at a king, you'd better not miss. Likewise with former presidents and their high level staff / advisers, etc., to some degree at least. I'd really like to think the guy's just very quietly getting all his ducks in a row and the sights lined up properly. And if we see some kind of serious movement on that front by, oh, say the end of this year at the latest, I might just be inclined to write the guy a letter of apology. Otherwise...
The language of what I wrote is that of frustration, but the underlying view would only be reinforced for me if another January rolls around and nothing of any significance has happened. It's just a fact that sometimes good people end up in jobs they really aren't suited for.
In your defense...I would have been WAY more animated in my response prior to 2016. After seeing the last 5 years play out...I have a ton of doubts about our ability to prosecute the real criminals in our politics.
I know. I feel much the same, and it's damned frustrating. I find myself wondering if part of the problem isn't that there may be some significant cases worked up and fleshed out and maybe ready to go, but they aren't being prosecuted because they aren't total slam dunks, and there are political considerations involved. I'm not saying that's true, I'm just sayin' when you look at the totality of what's happened in the justice system the past 6 years, your mind may start to wander, and end up somewhere along the lines of where mine is now. Yeah, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but sometimes I look at it all and just think...WTF?!
There's a new poll out there that shows Trump beating Biden in 2024. I think I'll go back to bed - the day is already too depressing.
You need to remember that:
1) People are stupid and short-sighted;
2) #1 repeated for emphasis;
3) Voting is largely non-rational and is based primarily on identity and how you feel things are going at the moment (not on how you think the other side would do)--and this is a FEELING, it is usually not data based;
3) polls much more than 90 days out from the actual election are actually kind of shite, because they lack the same context and events may play out in unexpected ways.
Polls have lost whatever value they once had. Does anyone, except the media, actually give a damn about them? Their questions are meaningless in any real context, tend to biased one way or another, and, whether they admit it, people lie. I've gotten a few in the mail and barely managed to resist the temptation to troll them. Instead, I ignore them.
I have worked with polling in the past (both creating and interpreting them). They still have value. The problem is that most people do not really understand polling and the media tends to misuse polling, compounding the error.
It would be better if they did not whip out a poll to support a point or argument. Polls aren't REALLY intended for that--they don't present that type of data in most cases unless very constrained and carefully constructed.
When voters are the type that think Trump should be tried for treason, but they would still vote for him over Biden...we are in dark territory. I would go back to bed, but I just made it so don't want to mess it up...
I gave up making the bed - the chihuahua kept messing it up. It's actually cold here in the desert today. :-)
My cats just refuse to move from their comfy spot...I have given up and just pull the comfoter up and not disturb them...lol
The chihuahua has started sleeping on the bed when I'm not home. :-) The 15-yr-old dachshund just sleeps under layers of blankets in his bed. I doubt he knows if I'm gone!
One of mine , sleeps on it during the day...the other doesn't always...pets, ya gotta love them...lol
Whether DJT’s insanity following the 2020 election is a crime or not is immaterial to me because it’s probably impossible to litigate to a decision, given his wealth. In any case what matters most is keeping that person out of the White House, and preferably away from the National discourse, an impossibility because he will not shut-up and the press keeps poking him. Legality aside, there’s no doubt DJT and his enablers acted like ‘keystone cops’ and should be, at minimum, soundly rebuked and expelled from politics and especially government. That said, Mr. Sykes and other DJT haters, always fail to report the Machiavellian actions of the January 6th committee. It’s not just that they ask for documentation well beyond the investigation scope, to be used for political purposes, they leak in that way in which Democrats are expert. The Ginni Thomas leak is particularly infuriating. There’s no arguing that her association with the January 6 lunatics is foolhardy, but she has the right and she’s not he. It’s an attempt to sideline Justice Thomas from cases in which Dems hope that ‘wishy-washy’ Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh can be convinced or intimidated into voting their way. It’s straight from the Adam Schiff playbook!
TFG doesn't have nearly the financial resources of the Federal government if they have the will to pursue it.
TFG doesn't need the press to poke him... when he feels he is not getting enough attention he does something to get the attention, because he is an attention whore. He can't live w/o it.
If your wife is involved up to their eyeballs in an attempt to overturn a legal election, it is REALLY hard to believe that 1) you didn't know, and 2) you won't try and cover for her (thereby also covering for yourself).
Recusal isn't about whether YOU (the one considering it) think that you are compromised. It is whether a reasonable person would think you are compromised. I am a reasonable person and I believe that he is compromised enough that he should not be involved. There are a lot of other reasonable people that believe the same.
One word: Whitewater
Going after the texts of Trump’s Chief of Staff is beyond the 1/6 Committee’s scope? Because that’s how they got the Thomas texts.
"but she has the right and she’s not he"
& by that measure, others too (including those pesky "Machiavellian Democrats") have the right to conclude that Thomas is compromised. His rulings on this matter (both from before and after the insurrection) certainly seem to show that as well.
Donald Trump official announcement that he hit a hole in one- Melania should stick that one on the fridge door.
Methinks Judge Carter gives TFG far too much credit for thought and insight. Making a case that TFG "knew" what he was urging is a very heavy lift. Most of what comes out of that small mouth is random BS lacking much coherence. If what comes out of the mouth is indicative of what goes on in the head, then it isn't likely that TFG could "know" whether his desired actions & outcomes are illegal or not. And that's the problem for DoJ in bringing charges. Even if TFG was advised that something he wanted wasn't kosher, would that even register in his mind? He assumed that the presidency was omnipotent, though it's really not. Proving illegal acts is easy. Proving intent is likely impossible in this case, especially given all the witnesses who "can't remember".
As Bolton said, and as I've long thought: With Trump, you never know if he believes what he says or it just serves his purposes to say it. IMO, he doesn't really draw a categorical distinction between what's true and what's good for himself. He often betrays a deeply self-centered view of right and wrong, and I suspect the same holds for true and false, in some measure.
He has, of course, spoken about the strategic value of repeating a fiction until people believe it. I think he might do the same thing withing himself: his narcissistic craving persuades him that the self-flattering take on everything is true. Or sometimes he might simply think that the difference between true and false is irrelevant. When he says something like "Nobody reads the Bible more than me," surely he must be aware that he doesn't really read the Bible at all. But in his warped psyche it doesn't matter whether his pronouncements are supported by fact -- only that he thinks they'll serve his desires.
Fortunately it's the reasonable person standard. The fact that Trump doesn't reach that standard in his own thinking is irrelevant.
Well, Judge Carter put that point to rest in his ruling. DJT has criminal liability.
Do you think he bought everyone on the course, and in the clubhouse a round as is the custom when you hit a hole in one?
Do pigs fly?