Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

Pompeo Called Me a Liar.' That's Not What Bothers Me. [op-ed]
www.nytimes.com

...Ask journalists why they do the job they do, and you'll hear a range of answers. Here's mine: Not every day, but on the best ones, we get to put questions to powerful people and hold them to account. This is both a privilege and a responsibility.

January has been an interesting month on this front. I've had the opportunity to put questions, one on one, to the top diplomats of both the United States and Iran, in their respective capitals.

Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, spoke to me on Jan. 7 in Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to me last Friday, in Washington. Each man represents a nation in conflict with the other; speaking with them, I wondered what path either could see out of the situation. In both cases, I was allotted 10 minutes for questions.

It turns out you can cover a lot of ground in 10 minutes. When Mr. Zarif sat down with me, on the sidelines of a big think tank conference focused on security in the Persian Gulf, it was just four days after an American drone strike had killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. We started there.

How might Iran retaliate for General Suleimani's death? ...


An interesting read.

-But did you listen to Dershowitz?

Yeah, did you?

"When you compare that to what Trump has done with Trump University, with so many other things, I think there's no comparison between who has engaged in more corruption and who is more likely to continue that if elected President of the United States," Dershowitz said.

"So I think what we're doing is we're comparing, we're saying, look, neither candidate is anywhere close to perfect, let's vote for the less bad candidate."

drudge.com

Or Alexander Hamilton on impeachment?

"The essay explains the framers' thinking on impeachment, as their reasoning had evolved over weeks of debate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It shows that political and criminal prosecutions are neither inextricably intertwined nor mutually exclusive. A president can be impeached for abuse of power in office, followed by a criminal prosecution or not. What offends the Constitution isn't identical to a statutory crime. Hamilton noted of impeachment:

The subjects of its 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 emphasis on "political" exists for a reason. Hamilton and his fellows had engaged in long and heated arguments about this particular prosecution process. Initial resistance to impeachment by some attendees"for fear it would be used to cow public officials"was eventually overcome when Constitutional Convention representatives explicitly agreed there had to be a distinct way to censure abuses of office and remove offending public servants, separate from criminal prosecutions and elections."

drudge.com

Impeachment was wrong for Clinton.

It has to be high crimes. Did Clinton do bad things? Sure.

But did you listen to Dershowitz?

In England, a show of no confidence and they just simply get rid of their opponent.

Our Forefathers debated the idea of impeachment. Then, they debated what would be the requirement to bring impeachment.

The House is messing with the Founders biggest, argued issue, and the Senate is legitimizing it.

Abuse of power has been said of every single president. Obstruction of Congress is a right of co equal branches of govt. The House needed to honor the creation of our govt and the rules of the co equal. The judicial should have been used to settle the dispute.

The House, and the Senate may, allow this precedence. Once they do, the die will be cast. The Executive branch will be subject to the will and perogative of the Legislative. No need for the Judicial branch. The branches will no longer be equal. The weight of the seriousness of impeachment has lowered the bar for high crimes.

This is fraught with danger and it still sounds like no one is afraid. The next president must answer the House. The courts are no longer needed. The crimes dont have to be defined, they dont have to be high. Just not liked and the opinion of the majority is all that matters.

Did you know why John Tyler was almost impeached for Abuse of Power? Because he 'abused' the Presidential veto. He dared to use it often. But, it was his authority to use it, but was accused of abuse. We are one step from abuse of Constitutional intent.

"Unleashing each and every House committee to torment the President with legislative subpoena after legislative subpoena is a recipe for constitutional crisis," attorneys for the President wrote in a Monday brief. The President's arguments in the House subpoena case " delivered in the brief by his lead impeachment defense attorney Jay Sekulow " diverge from those made in his ongoing Senate impeachment trial.

There, the President's attorneys and partisans in the Senate GOP caucus have argued that House Democrats failed to complete their investigation before bringing articles of impeachment to the Senate, saying that they should have been willing to sue to get the evidence they wanted.

While it's not an exact paradox, this dichotomy in full view can serve as one until something more precise emerges. It's not hard to see Trump's argument in trying to justify his interjection between Congress and his financial companies being extended to an argument that Congress would have no right to have subpoenas honored during impeachment on similar grounds that's he's already claimed in other cases - ie. a sitting President cannot be investigated, much less exposed to any legal process by any law enforcement agency, and even Congress when the basis is for disagreement over his use of Article II powers.

This is Catch 45 - the ultimate, self-entitled absolute immunity.

Just recognize that Trump's calls that the Democrats in the House should have pursued subpoenas and fought them in court only confirms his desire to lengthen the process beyond next fall's election knowing full well he would have argued against honoring any Congressional subpoenas all the way toe the SCOTUS anyway.

"Republicans are arguing that the latest reports -- that former national security adviser John Bolton's book manuscript says that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens -- are likely true but simply confirm what is already known.

And they are saying that new allegation, first revealed by The New York Times, is consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign.

But they say that nothing in there is impeachable -- nor does it warrant the hearing from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known, they say.

"I don't think anything he says changes the facts," South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. "I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. ... There's already that evidence on the record."

Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, added: "I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it."

SO... no one could have predicted... well, no one other than about half the people who post here. The rest of the article is full of prevarications by GOP Sens about what is impeachable.

Let's talk about that with Constitutional expert Charles Black, Jr who wrote the book on impeachment:

"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for impeachment and removal?"

Or suppose the President did what most people now seem to agree Trump did in order to win an election?

www.washingtonpost.com

There was another tv personality about a year ago who claims he was saying "Martin Luther King Junior"....but he was a fast talker and you can hear his broadcasts. He talks fast.

He blended the "K" sound along with "oo" sound from Junior and well..it came out "Martin Luther coon..pause..King Jr."

He was fired and is suing the tv station.

It doesn't appear the world of broadcasting has any tolerance for phonetic screw-ups.

Would it be fair for her to keep her job after running this guy out of town for something...well...similar.

In both cases the listening audience is positive they heard the offending word.

NYPD cop Michael Valva allegedly taunted son Thomas Valva for being cold before died nypost.com

^
They did the same to a guy who couldn't breathe.
This is a feature; not a bug.

Western Journal again?

"tradition-minded patriots face ceaseless assault by anti-Christian bigots, diseased migrants and race hustlers concocting hate crimes" en.wikipedia.org

^
Imagine knowing that's who butters your bread, and still not realizing they're just telling you what your already-made-up-mind wants to hear.

Note
Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable