Jonathan Turley mocks the idea of testifying on behalf of the Founders — “a form of necromancy that academics do all the time. And that’s what we get paid for.” Adds that he would strike George Washington from the jury pool because of his “extreme” executive power #impeachment
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) December 4, 2019
If you haven’t been following the impeachment hearings, apparently Democrats asked some expert witnesses what they believed the founding fathers would think of Trump’s behavior and whether or not they would find it an impeachable offense. This has Republican witness Jonathan Turley (LUL) and Republicans very het up, because as we all know, trying to figure out what is in the minds of the deceased is preposterous.
Unfortunately, that is the EXACT FUCKING judicial philosophy the Republicans have been pushing for the last forty years. RIP, originalism:
That meaning must be the objective meaning — not the reader’s subjective understanding or preferred reading. And that meaning must be the original meaning — that is, the meaning the Constitution’s words and phrases would have had to reasonably informed readers of the English language at the time they were used, in context, and accounting for any specialized usages or term-of-art phrases. Any other reading is pure anachronism, a misuse of language.
This single correct method of constitutional interpretation travels under many names. I call it “original-public-meaning textualism,” emphasizing the text and the requirement that it be taken in its known, original sense. A convenient (if imprecise) shorthand term is simply “Originalism.” It contrasts, sharply, with any of a variety of progressive theories under which the Constitution’s meaning shifts, morphs, evolves, or otherwise transmogrifies to suit the needs or circumstances of the moment — and, typically, to serve the interpreter’s desired political agenda.
There is functionally no distinction from going back in time and looking at Madison’s writings and applying them to whether or not Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and the judicial philosophy of originalism.
Just One More Canuck
Originalism for me, but not for thee
Danton
The very practical issue I have with “originalism” is that those who espouse are often those who’ve read very little 18th-century texts. The more theoretical issue is that it’s impossible for a late 20th/early 21st century man or woman to think like someone in the 18th century. It’s just an anachronism to believe one can.
Steeplejack
Source of the quotation?
hueyplong
The Republicans’ answer to literally everything at this point is, “Because fuck you, that’s why.”
They’re now fundamentally opposed to fig leaves.
VOR
I’m shocked, shocked to find Republicans are hypocrites. Fetch my fainting couch
Cleek’s Law rules.
Danton
The very practical issue I have with “originalism” is that those who espouse it are often those who’ve read very few 18th-century texts. The more theoretical issue is that it’s impossible for a late 20th/early 21st century man or woman to think like someone in the 18th century. It’s just an anachronism to believe one can.
Mike in Padadens
Originalusm is why Republicans on the Court (Scalia) ignored well regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment.
Betty Cracker
I wouldn’t chisel in that death date just yet; originalism will rise again just as soon as it’s needed to control women or proliferate weapons.
Steeplejack
@VOR:
I pulled mine over by the computer sometime in 2017.
Danton
Oooops. Got distracted. Sorry for the second post.
Yutsano
Because it’s a Republican president. Therefore originalism doesn’t apply. You know the rules of IOKIYAR John. It hasn’t been that long since you were a Republican.
Original Lee
I heard Turley the Turd say that and thought, “Wow, someone paid him a lot to abandon his body of work on short notice.”
Villago Delenda Est
Turley is, like all “conservative” legal experts, an intellectually dishonest sack of shit.
NickM
Don’t mourn originalism. Republicans will revive it the moment it’s useful to them again. There are no permanent principles, only permanent interests.
Marcopolo
Just want to pipe in & say going in I had very low expectations for today’s hearing. I am quite pleased to be wrong about that. Nadler’s done fine & the three sensible witnesses have done an excellent job of make their points in clear and concise fashion.
I am a politics nerd so I am probably finding this more interesting than most but what we’ve got here is another bad day for Trump.
Mike in DC
Originalism is just a fig leaf to justify anti-progressive court rulings. Its predecessor was strict constructionism, which was repudiated by the Court repeatedly, particularly in McCulloch v Maryland, 200 years ago.
The correlation between a judge’s political party and how they rule on something in which they have an ideological interest is a lot higher than 0.5.
Librarian
I’ve heard that the Dems are not asking Turley many questions. If so, they are missing a huge opportunity.
Raoul
The ability to do mental 180s when ‘your guy’ is in power v. last time, while keeping a poker face, is a Minimum Equipment List necessity in D.C.
X100 if one is Republican.
NotMax
Ain’t no “Air Force” authorized in the document. Or “Space Force,” for that matter.
;)
Raoul
@Librarian: My thought as well. Listening earlier in the car I was wondering who on the D side had the chops to lead him into some beautifully obvious flipflops. He needs to discredit himself at the table. Which seems not that hard to do, so why not!?
Brachiator
It’s funny. Washington realized that since he was the first goddam US president (under the Constitution), his decisions and choices would establish the norms of the office to a large degree. But I guess that since Trump has declared that he is the greatest president what ever was or what ever will be, then what he says goes, ya hear?
Oh yeah, Washington was never a senator, so even the idea of striking him from the jury pool is nonsensical.
LongHairedWeirdo
Is Turley the intellectual goombah who said that George Washington’s hair would catch fire if a President was impeached over a conversation with a foreign leader?
Seriously, is intellectual bad faith detection turned off these days? Trump’s not being impeached for having a conversation, nor even for the contents of that conversation, but because the high crimes and misdemeanors clearly implied by the conversation are proven by the documentary evidence.
Does he think that if George Washington asked Britain to execute an American, he couldn’t be impeached, because the crime only involved a conversation, and England did all the rest?
If yes: as I said, it’s not even a *serious* bad faith argument.
If no: then why bring it up? It does nothing but distract from the truth and facts.
But I suppose I’m shrill and terrible for saying this because that’s Jonathan F’ing TURLEY, bitch, and I’m just some weirdo on the internet who won’t let you pee on his leg, and insist it’s raining.
Yutsano
@NotMax: Hey! Leave Leto out of this!
:P
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
It isn’t just “originalism” that they’ve thrown down the memory hole, it’s everything they pretended to stand for prior to Nov 2016. Everything. Where are the tea baggers protesting the bailing out of farmers and the trillion dollar deficit? Where are the family values/pro-lifers when desperate people are separated from their children and locked up in cages? Where are the national security folks when Trump is sucking off Putin and Kim? Where are the state’s rights folks when the feds go after folks for marijuana in states it has been legalized?
They have always been frauds. The only thing they actually stand for and will never abandon is bigotry towards minorities and at risk communities.
Republicans are garbage people. Always have been, always will be.
JWR
Listening to Yamiche Alcindor, and she says that the WH and the Rs are now demanding an apology from Ds for the female witness’s line about how Trump’s 13yo son cannot become an actual Baron. They’re saying it’s out of bounds. They’re idiots. And it’ll probably sway our media to their POV, just like it always does.
germy
NotMax
@Yutsano
The spice must flow.
;)
Mary G
@Steeplejack: source of the OP:
National Review Sept. 2018 by Michael Stokes Paulsen, professor of law and distinguished university chairman at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis.
Just the usual argle-bargle.
Yarrow
Originalism was always bullshit. You can’t know for sure what the founders thought or intended so it’s completely open to any interpretation you want to fit your beliefs and wishes. It won’t die because it can be twisted to meet whatever the next wingnut thing is.
jonas
It’s all just a big game of Calvinball now for Republicans. Nothing matters any more. They’ll probably be quoting James Madison on something else tomorrow, claiming his words are holy writ and mean exactly what they say.
PenandKey
@Mike in Padadens:
I caught that too. “Originalism” is their ENTIRE justification for why we have to put up with weekly school shootings in this country rather than properly regulate combat grade firearms.
hueyplong’s right, their philosophy really does boil down to “fuck you, that’s why” these days.
Baud
Originalism is bullshit, Turley is a hypocrite, but most importantly, it doesn’t help Trump because Trump is impeachable even under non-originalist principles.
NotMax
@jonas
“Mr. Chairman, regarding Madison, I ask to enter into the record the original text of Hello, Dolly.”
:)
Yutsano
@PenandKey: Cleek’s Law. ALWAYS Cleek’s Law.
TomatoQueen
@Yarrow: If I started drinking ale at first light, instead of coffee, I bet I could provide a passable imitation of 18th-century thinking, right after the cakes and pies, prolly.
Mary G
@Baud: I don’t know why someone in our lovely media doesn’t write a piece quoting all the Republicans who said at the beginning of this that if the president had indeed extorted investigations by Ukraine by holding up weapons, of course he’d deserve to be impeached, but he didn’t do that and only this anonymous minion says he did.
Kay
John I think you’re a nice man but no one in the Republican Party cares about any of this anymore.
I live in a 70% Trump county, I deal with conservative lawyers constantly and they have really en masse abandoned just about everything they said or pronounced or scolded on for the last 30 years. I mean, pick the issue- fiscal conservatism, small government, originalism, executive over-reach, personal ethics, all of it. Gone. They abandoned the Kurds! To DIE. Trump said it so they did it. They are seizing private land to build the vanity wall. Eagerly. Enthusiastically.
You’re the last Republican I know who raises these things and you’re not even a Republican anymore. At this point it’s like pointing to Lincoln and saying they’re the party of African Americans. It’s history.
They traded everything for Trump. All of it.
jl
Mind read this:
” The subjects of its [impeachment’s] jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. ”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist number 65
rp
“[Originalism] consists of exactly one proposition…There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
MisterForkbeard
@JWR: I kind of hope they run with this. It’s such an easy dunk: “Look, the Republicans are so desperate that they’re pretending to be mad about a joke where Trump isn’t royalty. They say far worse on a daily basis, so let’s stop pretending they’re doing anything other than trying to distract and lie to the american people.”
NotMax
So it has come to this –
Rep. McClintock (R-Torquemada): “How many of you voted for Donald Trump? Show of hands.”
Tailgunner Joe would beam with pride.
ThresherK
This morning while getting weather my wife (yes, it’s her doing) left CBS on and Turley was talking stupid shit. I had no idea he was testifying.
Yarrow
@Kay:
This is what Rick Wilson has been saying for several years now. They’ve given up everything for Trump. Everything.
FlipYrWhig
@LongHairedWeirdo:
What’s funny about that is that a number of Brits got all upset about the apprehension of Benedict Arnold crony Major Andre and DID plead with Washington to intervene so he wouldn’t be executed AND HE DIDN’T.
germy
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/jonathan-turley-is-gops-ideal-impartial-trump-witness.html
MisterForkbeard
@NotMax: Shouldn’t that prove that these guys have basic common sense?
I mean, if 95% of all Constitutional Law scholars wouldn’t have voted for Trump, that says something about Trump. :)
germy
@MisterForkbeard: Four out of five dentists recommend Crest
Brachiator
@germy:
The fifth dentist is rather crestfallen.
NotMax
@MisterForkbeard
To their credit, Nadler took the time to remind them that it is a question to which they are under no obligation to respond, and they did not respond.
germy
@Brachiator: The fifth dentist has not yet received his check from Crest
worn
Jesus, John, that is just something they say when using an “Originalism” interpretation is supportive of whatever damn thing they wish to do at the time. It is not unlike all the very concerned gnashing of teeth we see about the need for fiscal conservatism that only seems to be an issue when Republicans are not in office. But I figured you already knew this given your time on that side of things.
TaMara (HFG)
I’m not sure how anyone listens to the Republicans today and NOT throw something at the screen.
Doug R
@germy: This Trident commercial explains the fifth dentist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqAyMhgc7I
Yarrow
Turley has the self-satisfied, smug demeanor of a guy who has been living at the top end of the income scale for a long time. Powerful at least in his own world and adjacent to real power. This anecdote in Adam Sewer’s tweet is in no way surprising.
germy
@Doug R: The squirrel grabbed (or bit) his nuts, it seems.
Hoodie
@Yarrow: While he can be amusing, Wilson is full of crap. They traded everything for a series of increasingly shitty action figures starting with Reagan. They ceased being a party of a particular economic philosophy when the Democrats started championing civil rights, and gradually devolved into a cult of personality led by caricatures, as they had no consistent ideological thread other than hatred of the other. The big tell that this was happening when asswipes like Gingrich and Ryan kept yakking about the GOP being the “party of ideas” while providing no solutions to anything and increasing levels of nihilism and cynicism culminating with the election of a completely amoral monster.
Yarrow
Ratcliffe and Turley look like they could be brothers or maybe cousins.
Yarrow
Is this originalist?
germy
@Yarrow: Just in time for Christmas.
Yarrow
@Hoodie:
I found this series of tweets wryly amusing:
WereBear
Go down together.
Roger Moore
@Danton:
There’s another huge problem: the Framers of the Constitution themselves didn’t agree on what it meant. The biggest example of this is the debate over the 10th Amendment. The proponents thought the 10th Amendment was necessary because the Constitution was unclear about whether the enumerated powers with the only powers the federal government had or if they were just examples. One group of opponents thought the 10th Amendment was unnecessary because it was obvious that the enumerated powers were limiting. Another group opposed it because they thought the enumerated powers were not limiting and didn’t want federal power limited that way. All three groups included people who had been at the Constitutional Convention. If they couldn’t agree on something so basic to the meaning of the Constitution right after they wrote it, it’s crazy to think we can figure out what they meant more than two centuries later.
Kathleen
@Betty Cracker: The Fundies will decree that Handmaid’s Tale is now a book in the bible.
Mike G
The whole point of Scalia-style Bullshit Originalism is that like medieval priests, only THEY know what the sacred Founding Fathers meant, therefore only they are legitimate judicial authorities.
The end-goal is Federalists having dominant judicial authority, originalism was just the vehicle. They won’t do a principled defense of originalism when someone else argues it, because they never gave a crap about it as a principle in the first place.
Dmbeaster
@Villago Delenda Est: Exactly this. Originalism as promoted by Scalia was largely a fraud.
Also, and humourously, the original intent of the Founders was for the Constitution to be a living document. They also believed in inherent rights beyond those explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. Somehow these turds ignore this originalism, even when it is explicitly spelled out in the ninth amendment.
sdhays
@Mike in DC: What’s the (supposed) difference between Originalism and Strict Constructionism? I thought Originalism was just a rebranding of the same garbage idea where the judges use people who can’t contradict them to justify whatever shit they want to do.
zhena gogolia
@NotMax:
This makes me sick to my stomach.
natem
Turley is particularly odious, cloaking himself in “reasonable” centrist Dem glory while giving cover to GOP mendacity. Exhibit Numero Uno in why the Village should be shoved into a car and dumped into a river.
debbie
@JWR:
I’ll tell you what was out of bounds. That Gaetz clown attacking Pamela Karlan (because of course he’d show a man far more respect). I know this is crude, but I couldn’t help but picture Trump jacking off to Gaetz’s statement.
Yarrow
@zhena gogolia: Nadler shut him down and instructed them that although the gentleman would be allowed to ask the question they didn’t have to answer. Then the option was hand up or hand down to answer the question so one of them said that keeping their hands down was in no way indicative of who they’d supported. It was a dumb gotcha attempt and Nadler handled it well.
Roger Moore
@Kay:
Not really. Those positions- fiscal responsibility, the size of the government, personal ethics, etc.- have been pretexts at least since Reagan. Trump didn’t make them give those things up; he just exposed their hypocrisy in pretending to support them.
Amir Khalid
In the modern Republican party, devotion to principle — any principle — is situational. In this situation, following the intent of the framers of the US Constitution works against them, so they have abandoned that principle. And this kind of devotion to principle has a name we all know.
By the way, I’m a happy boy tonight because the Merseyside derby was won by the home team, League Leaders Liverpool FC. 5-2!
debbie
@Kay:
Exactly! And they aren’t even happy about that. Did you hear Turley’s equivocations about Trump — that what he did was wrong but not impeachable? Not much of a character witness for the president, is he!
MazeDancer
Didn’t think I would much like it either, but got intrigued by Twitter and tuned in. So glad I did. The Dems witnesses were gangbusters great.
Johnathan Turley – who I have loathed for years – smirks. All the time. Not upping his credibility.
Hoping that his weak performance will doom any further appearances on MSNBC or Morning Joe.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Constitutional Originalism is a mirror of Biblical Originalism – the Original document is some other book that gives the “correct” meaning of the text (as in what ever the current conservative agenda is). By Tuley’s logic Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers are extremists because they aren’t following this book that was written almost two hundred years after they died.
hueyplong
@Yarrow: Since when is it true that only Trump voters can testify against him, anyway? WTF?
WereBear
@Roger Moore: it goes back to Republicans lying about FDR sending a Navy ship for his dog, Fala.
Ready to get in bed with Nazis then and now.
Aziz, light!
If the flag in the hearing room has a yellow fringe, then no impeachable offense has been committed.
MazeDancer
(Pretend this is a delete. Got edit to work on other comment)
debbie
@TaMara (HFG):
I was at work listening on headphones. I got through Gym’s questioning during the Intelligence Committee hearings, but I had to take them off and walk around a bit when Collins was pulling that absurd parliamentary shit at the very beginning.
SiubhanDuinne
Had physical therapy for my arm/wrist/hand today, so missed a good chunk of the House Judiciary Committee hearings. Could someone please enlighten me? What in the world did witness Pamela Karlan say about Barron Trump? I just heard a R member read a tweet from Melania castigating Karlan, but I can’t find what the horrible, offensive statement was in the first place.
Thanks, Jackals!
David ??Booooooo?? Koch
@debbie: What horseshit.
If Obama had extorted China into manufacturing a smear against Romney, Turley would be screaming for impeachment.
debbie
@SiubhanDuinne:
Short version: She said naming someone Baron doesn’t make them one.
debbie
@SiubhanDuinne:
Karlan also said this:
She will not be intimidated!
NotMax
@SiubhanDuinne
It was a throwaway line as part of an answer describing the differences between a president as set out under this Constitution and a king, referring to the part of the Constitution which forbids titles of nobility.
(paraphrasing) “A President can name his child Barron but cannot make him a baron.”
Puddinhead
@debbie: If you couldn’t help but picture Trump jacking off, then that is more than enough punishment for being crude.
P.S.: your comment was #69
zhena gogolia
Karlan apologized for mentioning Barron. I think that was a mistake. She didn’t say anything bad about Barron.
Hoodie
@Yarrow: Yep, it was a lie. However, anyone paying attention would have realized that long ago. I guess some people don’t realize they’ve been spiraling toward the abyss until they wake up in the gutter, while everyone else knew where it was heading when they were at the bar.
Ella in New Mexico
@MazeDancer:
Putting my money on “He’s already been booked for tomorrow on Morning Joe” for the win.
Baud
@zhena gogolia:
Worst thing we could do is play the Republicans game by obsessing over it.
burnspbesq
@Librarian:
Turley is doing a fine job of making himself look ridiculous without any help from the Dems on the committee.
SiubhanDuinne
@debbie:
@NotMax:
Thanks. Seems innocuous as hell, but while I was reading your comments Karlan apologised, so I guess it’s a non-issue now.
zhena gogolia
@SiubhanDuinne:
Oh, the howler monkeys are out after her, have no fear. She’ll have death threats before the day is out.
debbie
@Puddinhead:
Karma strikes again!
NotMax
Gotta marvel (in a way) at the Rs who are bellowing about not being in receipt of evidence from the Intelligence Committee hearings – who are themselves members of that committee and were present there in real time.
debbie
@zhena gogolia:
Someone better stand up real soon and forcefully state there was nothing at all wrong with what she said.
NotMax
@SiubhanDuinne
Tempest in the world’s tiniest teacup. It elicited chuckles from the audience at the time; not a gasp of horror to be heard.
debbie
@NotMax:
Gym must have been looking the other way at that time. He’s good at that. //
NotMax
@debbie
It will be lifted out of the context of the entirety of her answer regardless.
Baud
@NotMax:
I think it would have been better if Trump had named his son Earl.
Yarrow
@zhena gogolia: She didn’t say anything bad about Barron but it’s never a good idea to mention any president’s minor children. It’s not the kid’s fault their parent is president and they should be off limits. Just leave them alone. There are other examples she could have chosen or just make one up.
NotMax
@Baud
I guess Cartier was just too too.
:)
Baud
In other asshole news,
Jay
TS (the original)
@debbie: Which says nothing in relation to Barron – but everything about his parents
zhena gogolia
@Yarrow:
I wish she hadn’t done it, but the Repub’s are allowed to spew garbage all day long and nobody swoons.
Jay
Baud
Looks like we are going to play the Republican’s game and obsess over this.
zhena gogolia
@Jay:
She’s got that seat. What, you thought the Repubs would vote against her? Only Collins, I guess because it was safe to do so.
NotMax
Did anyone else feel like screaming “Oh shut up!” earlier on when ranking member Collins was bitching about the room being too cold and his chair being terribly uncomfortable?
debbie
@Baud:
If that’s not ruled a frivolous lawsuit …
Cheryl Rofer
Here’s the clip of what Karlan said about Barron/baron. And she apologized later.
Jay
NotMax
@Baud
Nope. Not even a nothingburger. More like a nothingslider.
Yarrow
@zhena gogolia: Yep. And that’s what we should be pushing back on. Don’t create opportunities for distraction. It was an own goal.
chris
@Baud: I saw the phrase “Zimmerman’s lawyer” and had to look.
zhena gogolia
@Yarrow:
It was just a kind of cheap quip, not necessary to make the point.
I’ll stop obsessing!
Butter Emails
@Yarrow:
Wilson would know. He’s one of the people who did the lying.
Raven
“Working with our allies.”
Emma
@Yarrow: I would back that if I hadn’t heard everything Republicans said about children of Democratic presidents, from Amy Carter down.
Jay
@zhena gogolia:
it’s interesting that the batshit insane legal thoughts are not just confined to “traditional ReThug values”.
makes one wonder what her thoughts on adoption are,….
SiubhanDuinne
@Raven:
I know.
I snorted.
Jay
Never go full Klayman,……
Yarrow
@Emma: It’s still the right thing to do. Minor kids of presidents should be off limits. Just leave them alone. They’re kids. Republicans who break that rule are scum but that’s a given anyway.
Jay
SiubhanDuinne
Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ
Rank Member Collins shaking his head is pissing me off. The camera should stay off of him.
TS (the original)
@Baud: Of course, democrats have to be perfect in every way – the media demands it
Jay
Hahahahahahahahahahaha,……..
Gasp,……..
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha,…..
Jay
Wonder if Tony Jay has seen this,…….
MisterForkbeard
@Jay: The best part of that is that Trump called Hannity, Ingraham and Carlson “legal scholars”.
What a fucking joke.
Jay
zhena gogolia
Jay
@MisterForkbeard:
and of course, they have never stayed at a Holiday Inn,……..
Amir Khalid
@Jay:
I suspect Tony is off for a bit, celebrating a Liverpool win in the Merseyside derby.
Jay
@Amir Khalid:
I thought ManU played football,
now you tell me it’s the name of a horse?,…….
Jay
‘Stanning this out there for the fans,….
Her tale is not over.
chopper
@Dmbeaster:
originalism is like costanza’s “it’s not a lie if you believe it”. to lying sacks of shit, it seems like a genius idea, but to the rest of us it’s just…tedious.
NotMax
Did get one healthy snicker from a comment by whoever the woman was on MSNBC earlier in the day, during a let’s blather to fill time segment during an intermission of the committee proceedings.
“We’ll be back after this commercial break with more from our brilliant panel. [pause] And Chris Matthews.”
Ooh, snap!
WaterGirl
@Amir Khalid: It’s a good thing you are here, otherwise Recent Comments would all be one Jay or another! :-
edit: well, that was true when I first came to the thread, because Recent Comments as filled with Jays and you. We move fast around here, and now there’s barely a Jay in sight.
chopper
@zhena gogolia:
so basically, the party that called chelsea clinton “the white house dog” has the vapors because someone mentioned trump’s kid’s name. that sounds about right.
Cacti
His alleged head trauma must have made him stupid.
In a civil suit, he can and will be compelled to testify, and will be eviscerated for every inconsistency in his story.
Jay
Jay
@WaterGirl:
more Tony Jay please,….
Yarrow
@chopper: They don’t have the vapors. They saw an opportunity to screech about propriety and play the victim. They’re very good at those things.
PPCLI
@Jay:
Not since Sir Alex retired.
Jay
chopper
@Yarrow:
well duh, with the gop the vapors have always been fake, who doesn’t know this.
Jay
@PPCLI:
wow, somebody’s gonna need some polysporin for that burn,….
BTDubs, stuck in moderation for a retweet with too many hashtags,…..
Yarrow
@chopper: Their supporters.
Jay
Jeffro
@SiubhanDuinne: They go banana-shit crazy over EVERYTHING…it’s by far their #1 go-to response.
Makes the Left re-think and ponder endlessly about whatever it was they ‘did’…helps the Right work the refs in the media…keeps the party faithful in line…
…I’m not surprised they do it every time. It works.
Cacti
@Jeffro: Liberals apologize WAY too much.
FlipYrWhig
@SiubhanDuinne: Also mitigating the pretend outrage is that THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT JOE FUCKING BIDEN’S FUCKING SON FOR FUCK’S FUCKING SAKE
LongHairedWeirdo
@natem:
That’s why the calling out of bad faith really has to occur. Look, there’s simply no good faith defense for saying this has anything to do with foreign policy/conversations with foreign leaders.
Good faith has become ever less present with the GOP. For example, they asked the courts to find that there was no reason for intact dilation and extraction (the actual medical procedure called “partial birth abortion”) because (wait for it) the GOP Congress had a fact finding set of hearings that found there was no reason for it.
Seriously. “Don’t you dare review our work!”
And the thing is, once a person shows bad faith, they need to be burned. If you know that, for example, Kavanaugh will call a perfectly reasonable question of fact a “search and destroy” mission, while under oath, you know he’ll engage in bad faith whenever he sees a large enough benefit to himself, and thus, you can’t trust him. (Of course, any Senator who voted to confirm a justice who actually swore revenge (again, *UNDER OATH*) against a political party asking reasonable questions should be ashamed of themselves.)
Where was I? Right, *bad faith*.
We *assume* good faith. We *assume* that if someone says something, it’s relevant, and intended to advance the conversation. But Turley was clearly bringing up things so completely out of context, so clearly lacking in sense, that you need to accept that, no, he’s not that stupid, he’s clearly corrupt, and untrustworthy.
And you need to remember, there is no “well, only a little corrupt” defense. “Would you mislead the American people about the nature of criminal behavior for a million dollars? You would? Then how about for $50? Huh? What kind of man do I think you are? We’ve already established that you’re corrupt, and a crook, we’re just haggling over the price.”
WaterGirl
@Jay: I love all Jays equally. :-) No playing favorites!
Jay
japa21
@WaterGirl:
That’s very steller of you.
Jeffro
I love how standards – any standard, every standard, especially the made-up ones – only apply to Democrats, never-trumpers, anyone who makes a vague gesture towards upholding the rule of law, etc etc.
Get smart and interesting, national snooze media! Ask the G(ang)O(f)P(utin) exactly what standards they hold their party to anymore. Keep it up with the Lindsey Graham 1998 vs Lindsey Graham 2019 comparisons (same with Gaetz, same with Turley, etc)
Jeffro
@Cacti: Apologizing at ALL, ever, with this gang of goons is too much. But yes, good point.
Where is the liberal outrage? Give it a try, libs! Fire off! “WE ARE GOING TO SPEND THE NEXT TWO DAYS ANGSTING OVER A BARRON/BARON COMMENT WHEN THE president* ENDANGERED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY TRYING TO BRIBE AN ALLY INTO SMEARING A DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENT?”
Also, F Melanoma – she jumped in and now she’s fair game too. Let’s see the immigration papers and also her work history for her missing decade. Birther Queen
Amir Khalid
@MisterForkbeard:
Trump has spent time on TV pretending to be a businessman, and those three have spent time on TV pretending to be …
trnc
These 2 facts are not unrelated.
The Lodger
@Yarrow:
Why not both?
Mary Ellen Sandahl
@jl: Granted that I was born in 1943, but that still makes me 20th C vintage, and yet I understood that pretty well.
pluky
@Raoul: I believe Rep. Swalwell did an excellent job of taking Prof. Turley’s petard, inserting it in his anus, and hoisting