Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Voltaire's Dead


Silverfiddle Rant!
Voltaire: “I wholly disagree with what you say and will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Today's Infotainment Social Media Complex: “I wholly disagree with what you say and I will fight you to the death to deny you your right to say it." 


I typed the name "Eric Ciaramella" into a comment at The Hill, hit Submit, and the comment immediately went into moderation.  Facebook has also banned the Voldemortian Name.

Can anyone recall the last time the entire Infotainment Media Complex circled their wagons around a whistleblower instead of gouging each others' eyes out in barroom brawls to be the first to out him?

This is unprecedented.  And amateurish.  By blocking his name, they give the big reveal: He's the spying, lying, leaking weasel.

When the press stops championing free speech and instead becomes shameless advocates for the establishment, Democracy dies.

I leave you with another Voltaire Quote:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."


* - I know, the "fight to the death" quote is not a Voltaire quote, but it is a famous statement that encapsulates western civil libertarianism, so spare us the canards.

176 comments:

  1. I didn't know that second Voltaire quote; it's a good one.

    The "dying in a ditch" reference always reminds me of an old Charlie Brooker column about freedom of the press (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/sun-should-become-like-twitter) which, despite being written in deceptively crude language (not swearing IIRC, but certainly cartoon violence), nonetheless manages to convey some fairly subtle and human points about criticism and censorship.

    Do you get Black Mirror on your American netflix? It is ace, and he produces it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am waiting for them to ban Trump from Twitter....

    ReplyDelete
  3. For further reading on the topic: https://www.city-journal.org/journalists-against-free-speech

    ReplyDelete
  4. And for a comic twist: https://babylonbee.com/news/man-in-critical-condition-after-hearing-slightly-differing-viewpoint

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have to laugh. Last week the great Mark Steyn was substituitng for Rush Limbaugh [(I much prefer Steyn to Rush these days, bcause Rush has grown hoarse, strident, sour and notably fatigued and stale], but anyway, Steyn did practcally a whole show talking about ERIC CIARAMELLA, the WHISTLEBLOWER with sinfrmatin and peculatiionon his background, his motives, and the absurd veil of secrecy behind which the lying, scum-sucking, notaby putrid piece of feces, ADAM SCHITT has tried to hide him

    I then googled ERiC CIARAMELLA, found pages of references, copied one and pasted it into more than one blog including Always On watch.

    The sky didn't fall. No one got swallowd up willy nilly in a crevasse, and nobody seemed the least bit INTERESTED either. }:^∂>

    SO, I've been giggling maniacally to myself when I watch the luminaries of FUX News sedulously avoiding any mention of CIARAMELLA'S name, even though "everybody" has knwn it for days already.

    WHY are the militantly conservatve FUX "hosts" avoiding mention of CIARAMELLA, the Whistleblower's, name?

    BECAUSE –– as they've quick to tell us –– THEY'VE BEEN ORDERED TO STIFLE IT BY tHE HIGHER UPS!


    How much more ABSURD could our hopelessly benighted society hope to get?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Franco,
      How much more ABSURD could our hopelessly benighted society hope to get?

      I don't want to know!

      Delete
  6. The "whistleblower" is the latest in a long list of false narratives introduced by the Establishment (Deep State) in an effort to overturn the 2016 election. The prohibition of speech regarding it is an effort to avoid revealing the dishonesty involved.

    Republicans have, for the most part, not even attempted to attack these false narratives. They have not needed to, as you cannot build a structure out of manure - it collapses under its own weight. The "whistleblower" collapsed faster than most.

    So now they are using the "quid pro quo" and the "investigating Biden" narratives, and rushing to impeachment with them before they are really established because the election is getting too close for comfort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jayhawk,
      rushing to impeachment

      Never mind Pelosi' protestations to the contrary.

      Pffffft!

      Delete
    2. "...in an effort to overturn the 2016 election."

      Way to follow the absurd meme. No, it's not about the election. It's about restoring a democracy. It's about the next elections in this democracy.

      And you all really OK with allowing and encouraging foreign entities to become involved in our elections? How is that not treasonous?

      Delete
    3. So then, it wasn't treasonous to manufacture the Steele Dossier? It wasn't treasonous to use manufactured storylines as valid evidence for the purpose of obtaining FISA warrants? Really? And this is part of your plan for restoring democracy?

      Delete
    4. You're basing you're argument on fraudulent information.

      Delete
    5. Up votes for Mustang's comment at 6:11!

      Delete
    6. Goose, Mustang crushed you. Up your game.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    8. Except for the fact that Hillary was not president and did not initiate the research. The GOP did that.

      Except for the fact she did not bribe a foreign government with military aid paid for without tax dollars.

      Except for the fact that Trump has not released the unedited transcript of the call, banned first hand witnesses from testifying and will not testify himself.

      Except for the fact he still hasn't released his tax returns.

      Delete
    9. Except for the fact that your "facts" are not facts but "Progressive" talking points and vague generalities and eratta that play fast and loose with reality, you are correct.

      Delete
    10. ...and Warren crushes the silly goose again.

      Democracy dies in Democrat Dumbshittery

      Delete
    11. Really? Trump did release his tax returns? Trump released the unedited transcript of the call. I don't think so.

      Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

      Nice try!

      Delete
    12. ...and Hillary through her campaign through Perkins Coie through Fusion GPS took deliver of the Dossier and injected it into the public domain and intel services.

      You're not very good at this. Up your game, Junior.

      Delete
    13. Tax returns... errata, they are his personal returns, they have already been audited by the IRS. Why should he release them in view of how he has been treated. Just another fishing expedition. I wouldn't willingly release mine either and they are as simple as can be.
      At the behest of the Clinton campaign, Percans Cole paid $3 mil for the opposition research Fusion GPS already had "and" the bogus "dossier" which the Conservative organization had neither paid for or received. As a matter of fact the Conservative organization had cancelled it's contract with Fusion as soon as Donald Trump had won the Republican primary.
      That information has been out for more than a year.
      You can't seem to separate your malformed opinions from fact. (Hint) the NY times is an arm of the Democrat Party.

      Delete
    14. Warren,

      This is what happens when rabid leftwing crybabies grab cut-and-paste talking points, unthinkingly ingest them, and then act as human manure spreaders, casting the leftwing crap far and wide.

      Delete
    15. The GOP began the research.

      Trump's tax returns will prove he's in bed with Putin. You know this.

      Delete
    16. Seriously, Goose, you need to seek help before you hurt yourself or someone else.

      Delete
  7. the spying, lying, leaking weasel

    Accurate terminology.

    And the media are sh*t weasels. Photo HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is it any wonder that we have a generation of people who cannot abide any form of free speech? Even if it isn't exactly free speech.

    Related to yesterday's hearings on the Hill:

    Therapy Dogs Brought In For Stressed Out Staffers Of Impeachment Circus Lawmakers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps this information is in error. It might have been a coincidence that the therapy dogs were on the Hill.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

  10. I am as embarrassed and disgusted at the fact that these idiotic bleeding heart Progressives need to post those lies, and idiotic comments along with those stupid, UN-FACTUAL, un-true, and VILE, Photoshopped pictures with those idiotic lying captions just to belittle, denigrate, and discredit our President. I would have assumed that these idiots would have left the country by now, as they said they would.
    Those so called “House of Representatives “ have had control of the House for 3 years now and done nothing but tried to bring down the President. Is that why they were elected? I don’t think so!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why does it matter *who* the whistleblower(s) is / are, if his account has been confirmed, corroborated, and verified by named officials from within the Trump administration?

    Trump advocated confiscation of guns from American citizens without due process. Who cares how they get rid of the bastard?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Publishers and editors have aspiring journalists right where they want them. Want a job? Get in line with our agenda. This may not be a new phenomenon since, at least in the United States, newspapers and periodicals have always taken to political posturing; it is, after all, what they do for a living. The only reason for reporting on crime, business, entertainment, and sports is that it serves as a draw to readership. I know people whose only reason for buying a news sheet is the daily crossword. Back in time, when most Americans couldn’t read, newspapers spoke to those who could. Now, when most Americans can read, but don’t, newspapers cater to people who do read and who happen to share the publisher/editor’s view of the world. Amazingly, these world views closely mirror those of their schoolteachers, their chums, and their parents (who were also educated in America’s progressive education system). And if it’s true that most people are only interested in knowing what they already believe to be true (about anything), what is the value of debate? Since views expressed on social media aren’t likely to change anyone’s mind (about anything), one wonders: outside of venting, why bother?

    ReplyDelete
  13. What an epic clown show. Some kind of joke or the infernal logic of the Pit?

    Then there's manly Ciaramella. Good work fella, the revolution looks like a latte. To put it mildly.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What reason do we have to believe Ciaramella is "the" whistleblower much less the only whistleblower? Seems that everyone following the Constitution (i.e. respecting the checks and balances of Congressional oversight power and following subpoenas to testify) all back up or strengthen the whistleblower's assertions. Isn't that what matters? Suppose Ciaramella is the whistleblower? In the context that the whistleblower's assertions have been validated and vindicated by others with first hand knowledge and positioned with unassailable credibility to do so, knowing the whistleblower's name would mean what, exactly? Whoever the whistleblower(s) is / (are), their assertions are pretty much confirmed already by credible testimony. Am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its a difference of opinion. That's not a crime.

      What is a crime is subverting the policies of the unitary executive authority and spying on him for political purposes.

      So far, we have at least one CIA employee and one Army officer playing partisan politics. Both should be fired.

      Delete
    2. Yes, they were. What should alarm everyone is these people were involved in partisan politics. That is a big no no for military people, and should be for other government employees as well.

      Delete
    3. " confirmed already by credible testimony. Am I wrong?"
      Yes.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I do NKt believe in "Fredom of Speech" for SUbVerSIVE elements and POISONUS philosophies bound and determined to UPEND and DESTROY the United Sates of America AS FOUNDED.

    I don't give a tinker's dam for the "rights" of lousy, shinking MARXISTS, crypto-Marcxissts, cultural Marxists, Maoists, Trotskyites, "Demcratic" Socialists, Statists, Aggressiv Atheists, Islamists, worshippers of SATAN, SNAKES, WHORES, or VOODOO Priests, etc. ALL are completely antithetical to the PRINCIPLES and the SENTIMENTS on which this still-great nation was FOUNDED.

    Permitting the free, unfettered expressiin of SATANIC ideologies, which is precisely what MARXISTM and all it derivatives ARE, has led us into the MORASS we must deal with today, an has CORRUPTED several generatiins of Young People.

    The ONLY 'discussion" that should be permitted about Marxism and Mohammedanism and all the other rotten "isms" infesting the world should be a strict, highly assertve WARNING against these terrible terruble things.

    Why should the First Amendment permit and support obviously DEPRAVED, CORRUPTIVE, DEGENERATE, RUINOUS, frankly SUICIDAL POLICIES?

    That's a serious question, and I'd like someone to give me a SERIOUS, THOUGHTFUL answer –– not some stale, canned shibboleth, flippnt dismissal, or boilerplate formula.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Serious, thoughtful answer: Why should the 1st Amendment permit and support your tantrum?

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Making the rant above all the more absurd.

      Delete
  17. Daniel Henninger has a good take on the Schiff Show...

    The Take Down Trump Project

    In it, he acknowledged the established facts that President Trump is a loose cannon, but not listening to State Department professionals is not a crime. Conversely, State Department professionals, subverting the president's authority and purposely not carrying out his policies is a violation of our constitution.

    He also points out Congress would have been well within its constitutional bounds to hold hearings on the President's Ukraine policy.

    Strong-arming other nations and "quid pro quos" are not illegal.

    It is an established fact President Trump wanted investigations.

    It is unsubstantiated conjecture he wanted them to help his 2020 campaign.

    Our government going back to Obama had been demanding various things from Ukraine vis investigations and cleaning up corruption, so the Presidents requests were not a bolt out of the blue. He can legitimately argue this is a continuation of US policy.

    Opening unofficial channels outside the State Department is neither illegal nor unprecedented.

    One can argue, as Henninger does, that President Trump's conduct viz Ukraine has been clumsy and ill-considered, but no laws were broken.

    Also, something I haven't heard anyone make a case for, is the President's state of mind and motives. Given his environment, a White House full of political spies, leaking weasels, sabotaging moles, verminous rats and hissing cockroaches, he has very good motivations to legally go around the system and place information on restricted access service (Which UNLIKE Hillary, are official government property storing official government records as required by law).

    The Democrat's case is a paper boat in a rainstorm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe. But let's dispense with the absurdity of pretending "it is unsubstantiated conjecture he wanted them to help his 2020 campaign." Neither of us are naive or retarded, so let's acknowledge President Lock Her Up LOL Never Mind's motives are less than pure. Would anything the Ukrainians produced / manufactured about Biden be admissible in a US court anyway? Having to dodge lightning and meteors on the way to cashing a winning billion dollar lottery ticket at the Hawaiian birth certificate archives seems more likely.

      Bonus points: Did Trump / Guiliani's end run around official diplomatic channels constitute a violation of the Logan Act?

      Delete
    2. Hint: it is constitutionally impossible for a President to violate the Logan Act. That leaves Citizen Guiliani holding the bag. Who represents US foreign policy to the Ukraine? Our State Department diplomatic corps, or Donald Trump's 2020 campaign lawyer?

      Delete
    3. So... did Guiliani break federal law on his own volition or under orders from Trump?

      Is a President ordering someone to violate federal law for his own personal / political gain impeachable?

      Will throwing Guiliani under the bus save Trump?

      Delete
    4. What federal law did President Trump order Giuliani to violate?

      More disturbing to me is Rudy's business dealings/information brokerage or what the hell ever he was making money on over there. That stinks, if its true.

      I have already written scathing criticisms of foreign influence peddling, so I'll spare you, but our political establishment entanglements with foreign influence peddling, and making millions overseas because you have high connections in the US government is the real rot, and all parties shamelessly engage in it.

      Delete
    5. BTW, they are all corrupt in Ukraine, but whoever holds the power gets to declare themselves clean and their enemies corrupt. That's how it works in much of the world.

      Our government--and the diplomats conducting its business--make the mistake of taking sides. Meanwhile, whichever government is in power in Ukraine is willing to do whatever it takes to stay on the good side of Western Powers.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Les, Actually, it's "whatever President Trump does is wrong."

      Anti-War Code Stinko types are excoriating him for getting out of Syria.

      Delete
    8. What federal law did President Trump order Giuliani to violate?

      It appears Guiliani's actions violate the Logan Act. The question is if Guiliani was under orders from Trump or not; the yes or no on that bifurcation lead to different legitimate reasons to impeach Trump. It's fairly cut and dried. Attorney-client priviledge doesn't shield Guiliani from committing the Logan Act violation or Trump from the impeachable offense of ordering him to do so.

      So, does Trump throw Guiliani under the bus, or does Guiliani throw Trump under the bus?

      Trumptards should have gone with the John Barron made the phone call instead of Trump defense.

      Delete
    9. ... because the Sideshow Bob defense (no crime was committed because the attempt failed) is not working.

      Delete
    10. There is nothing illegal in a president sending an emissary to a foreign nation. Happens all the time.

      If Rudy was tied up in a money-making operation, that's a different story.

      Delete
    11. Is Guiliani Trump's personal lawyer, or is he a diplomatic attache? Legally, he can't be both

      Nice try though.

      Delete
    12. You keep saying "Logan Act" like it's ever been enforced, or will be.

      Delete
    13. They need to arrest Dennis Rodman for all that Logans Acting in North Korea...

      Delete
    14. I wonder if Trump gave Rudy his "power of attorney"...

      lol!

      Delete
    15. Was Dennis Rodman a diplomatic attache?

      Delete
    16. from Wiki: The Washington Post raised the question of whether President Donald Trump sent Rodman on his 2017 visit to negotiate the release of several American prisoners of North Korea or to open a back channel for diplomatic communications.[138] The U.S. State Department, White House officials, and Rodman all denied any official government involvement in the visit. Rodman, who publicly endorsed Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, is a self-described longtime friend of the president and, as the article put it, "Trump and Kim's only mutual acquaintance."[138] The Washington Post article stated, "Multiple people involved in unofficial talks with North Korea say that the Trump administration has been making overtures toward the Kim regime, including trying to set up a secret back channel to the North Korean leader using 'an associate of Trump's' rather than the usual lineup of North Korea experts and former officials who talk to Pyongyang's representatives."[138]

      When asked if he had spoken with Trump about the visit, Rodman replied, "Well, I'm pretty sure he's pretty much happy with the fact that I'm over here trying to accomplish something that we both need."[139] Rodman publicly presented a copy of Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal" to North Korean officials, as a personal gift for Kim Jong Un. In a Twitter video posted by Rodman, his agent Chris Volo said, "He's the only person on the planet that has the uniqueness, the unbelievable privilege of being friends with President Trump and Marshal Kim Jong Un."[131] Rodman went on to say in the video that he wanted to bring peace and "open doors between both countries."

      Delete
  18. Accepting the character of the current occupant if the White House as normal and therefore acceptable behavior does a GREAT DISERVICE to the values that Americans heretofore elieved represented our democratic republic.

    Challenging such egregiously improper and unprifessional actions is both Patriotic and Proper.

    All the ranting and raving by SOME about Marxism, crypto-Marxism, and other such BS is nothing but flagrant demagoguery and serve ABSOLUTELY no purpose but to inflame and INTENTIONALLY cut short any and all disagreement.

    So.. who are the real authoritarians? It isn't WHO trumpers believe it is. That's for damn sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unelected bureaucrats subverting the will of the people and running their own policy in contravention of the President's intent is unconstitutional and un-American.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I think it's safe to uncensor the part of the Mueller Report dealing with Roger Stone's crimes now.

      Goodbye, Trump.

      Delete
    4. Les, what exactly did I twist? The President was not doing what the Foreign Policy Establishment wanted him to do. What does the constitution say about who wins that one?

      What does Rudy have to do with my comment?

      Now, answer the question: Who determines foreign policy? The President, or the diplomatic corps?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Les, I am shaking my head. I don't know what's gone wrong with you.

      I asked you a fact-based question and you refuse to answer.

      You Never Trumpers have come unhinged. There is a legitimate case to be made that his behavior is obviously indecorous and unpresidential, and you have made that case.

      The sum of you unhinged Democrats' argument now is that he is a mean boss who doesn't do what the unelected bureaucrats tell him to do. We have an Army Officer and a CIA employee spying on the President for political points, but you don't care about that, and that extremely dangerous for our democratic republic. Will you admit that, or will you continue to have your head planted in your ass?

      Our Democratic Republic is dying a death of a thousand cuts, but President Donald Trump is but one lash.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. SF: The left NEVER answers a question.
      They just say what they want to say.

      Delete
    10. Ed,

      Yup. Franco Aragosta asks me, in private conversation, why I am so patient with rabid leftists like Les and Ducky. I just want the cut through the BS and get to the bare facts and logic of the matter, but that is increasingly impossible.

      I am not a blind-wild Cheerleader for President Trump and I acknowledge his many faults (which I think most of us do), but unhinged leftists like Les and Ducky and Goose continue to treat us like the drooling, worshiping benighted hick stereotypes that exist only in their mind.

      The intellectual self-castration of the left is a danger to the nation.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. I want to know what YOUR answer it, because it will reveal who you are what is the basis for your outrageous outbursts.

      Delete
    13. I'll restate my questions:

      Who determines foreign policy? The President, or the diplomatic corps?

      Is it a legitimate function of a US Army officer and a CIA employee to spy on a president and provide salacious details to his enemies in the bureaucracy? To leak information?

      I'll get the ball rolling by stating that President Trump--your president, Les--was stupid and venal in asking for an investigation of the Bidens, and it could prove to be an abuse of power, depending on circumstances, although they have a long way to go to prove an actual crime.

      An easy way to get to the bottom of this is for the US to investigate the Bidens. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about, right?

      Delete
    14. SF, I've been skimming today's back and forth with limited interest, since I really don't give a piss about the ongoing partisan theater....but your stated-as-fact claim about Vindman spying intrigued me, as it's a similar vein to what you rightly admonish RN and Goose for.

      Generically speaking, a whistleblower is a person who exposes secretive information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within a private or public organization. Vindman made a claim, and that claim was upheld by Trump's own selectee as Inspector General for the IC.

      Speaking rationally - as well as technically - there is no overt case to be made that Vindman was "spying" versus being a whistleblower....irrespective of the politically correct claim that he's not.

      Delete
    15. Vindman appears to be a partisan actor. If so, he needs to be forced into retirement.

      We have some constitutional issues here, but it ain't coming from President Trump.

      Delete
    16. The CIA employee also appears to be a partisan political actor. If so, he needs to be fired.

      People (including me) already distrust government institutions, and having CIA and military people attacking the president, leaking, not carrying out his lawful orders, and getting snitty over policy they don't like is a very bad look.

      The CIA's reputation is already shot. I don't want to see rogue operators doing the same to the military.

      Delete
    17. That's a fair opinion overall, but I don't know that there has been any information concerning the opposition to policy per se.....only opposition to conduct from the White House.

      I also understand the perception of the CIA, but am cognizant that it's the public, open source perception. I don't share your opinion in its entirety, for reasons that you can probably understand.

      Delete
    18. Had you stated your question initially as you later rephrased it I would have answered in some detail. At this juncture I have zero interest in a dialog with you. I always suspected Octopus was right about your motives and MO. I now know he was right.

      Delete
    19. Les,

      I put my opinions out there, and I state them as opinions that are subject to revision based on more information someone may provide.

      I put it out there because I seek a dialog based on fact, logic and reason.

      Could you please explain what you think my motives are?

      Delete
  19. On foreign policy...

    The president has substance but his style is horrible.

    The diplomatic corps has horrible substance but a deft and polished style.

    That should be a match made in heaven for US citizens who elected an iconoclastic president, but when the "professional class" of mandarins and panjandrums refuse to implement the President's rough-hewn policies, or even countenance helping him craft smooth, effective ones, what choice does a president have?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Silver... I'm guessing the Foreign Service Corps, many of whom have served multiple admins from both parties, would love to help Pres Trump craft "smooth, effective" policies.

    Do you think he has any interest in this?

    We've seen a parade of formers aides, advisors, cabinet secretaries and Trump himself basically say he desires, nor trusts any counsel more than himself.

    How can you give counsel to someone who refuses to accept it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      Fair question, and I think we are in a chicken-Egg situation here.

      Which came first? Attacks on President Trump? Or his demonstrated mistrust of the bureaucracy that is supposed to serve him?

      Can you understand, after literally thousands of leaks from day 1, why he mistrusts people who are supposed to help him?

      BTW, our Foreign Policy Establishment, like the CIA, doesn't have many accomplishments it can point to with pride. We have been a blind, mad, destructive cyclops thrashing and crashing our way around the world.

      Delete
    2. Their job is to sell HIS pitch, not theirs.
      Their counsel isn't style, it's substance, a substance he rejects.
      And He's the boss.

      Delete
    3. Ed, I disagree. Their counsel, often times is style. Yesterday was a prime example. Everyone could see that Trump denigrating Yovanovitch, in the middle of a hearing, was not going to turn out well. The Republicans defending him on Capitol Hill were 100% blindsided by his tweets.

      As she asked, and implicitly admitted, Pres Trump, like all others, can hire and fire Ambassadors at will. All he had to do was call her in, or send her a letter saying "Thank you for your service, I've decided to go with someone else."

      Yet, he had to make it personal and insult her. And others with whom he disagrees. Trump brings on this type of conflict because he likes it.

      He refuses counsel on how to comport himself in public because he believes he knows best. And yet, more often than not, it is the style of his decisions that get him into trouble.

      He can have his policies all he wants. He's the Pres... he's the boss. He'd get more respect, and support, including from needed swing and tired GOP voters, if he would listen to counsel and moderate his style.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Ed, but I also strongly agree with Dave Miller. President Trump continually cuts the legs out from under his defenders, and he is rude and insulting.

      He could achieve the same effect without personally insulting people, and his popularity would probably be 10 points higher.

      Delete
    5. Silver... I think it would and he'd be crushing the Dems.

      But I also don't think he'd be enjoying it as much.

      Delete
  21. Republicans playing stupid for Trump doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Maybe some Senators will move for a secret ballot in Trump's impeachment trial so there is no fallout from flushing this simpering piece of excrement out of the White House and hope rational people soon forget they carried water for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Senate trial / impeachment vote were secret ballot, Trump would be removed from office 85 to 15. Republicans could keep their reputation as a feckless lot unwilling to put their name on anything bold, but who cares. Trump would be gone.

      Delete
    2. Bill Clinton advised Trump to ignore the impeachment proceedings and just do his job.

      So we're probably going to bomb Serbia soon.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm willing to be charitable. Trump's election served its purpose. It kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House. He deserves a historical asterisk for that. That singular and narrow purpose now served, he can go back to whatever failed venture gives him a tax break.

      The most compelling pro-Trump argument posited in this thread is the defense that Trump is just continuing the foreign policy of Barack Obama. Let that sink in.

      I am not a NeverTrumper. I'm a Hell-No-Screw-That-Left-Wing-Blithering-Idiot-Named-Trumper.

      Delete
    2. If you've got an hour, Bob Barr outlines the case against "legislative dictatorships" (aka- the Pelosi House) above.

      Delete
    3. Joe Conservative said:

      It wouldn't matter if the elected President were a wino/ street person. He is the authority for all things "Executive" within and without the borders of the USA. A refusal to accept and obey his legal orders is an anti-Constitutional subversive act. And people who refuse to obey the Constitution do not deserve the Constitutional protections that America provides, as they have broken the social contract that binds us to them.

      In other words, "go *BLEEP* yourselves, losers." :)

      Delete
    4. Rational Nation's unwitty and unimaginative retort:

      Which is why Trump deserves impeachment AND removal. He has no respect for, OR understanding of, the Constitution as well as a complete disregard for the rule of law.

      So JC,go *BLEEEEEEP* yourself loser :)

      Delete
    5. RN and Joe:

      Please, gentlemen, no more use of the F-word. That gets you automatically deleted, and that is shame, because then the comment thread is interrupted.

      Delete
    6. If President Donald J. Trump--Your President, Les--had no respect for the constitution, the wall would be almost finished, millions deported, troops home from Afghanistan, and yapping loudmouth leftwing lying leaking anti-American insurrectionists would be jailed.

      Delete
  23. Thanks to the odious presence of SCHIFFASSES this place is swimming neck deep in SCHIFF, and the imbeciles who insist in RESPONDING to them.

    P______H______E______W______!


    O, Judgment thiu has fled to brutish beasts, an men have lost their reason . . ."

    ~ Shakespeare - Hamlet

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Right's obsession with the Whistleblower is an absurd deflection. There has been far more evidence of Trump's guilt from the few witnesses this week.

    And on a daily basis with his tweets and threats, Trump digs himself in deeper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Obsession all began with Shifty-Schiff. But now, the Democrats are embarrassed by him, for it would expose their collusion and misconduct in orchestrating the farce popularly known as their impeachment hearings.

      Delete
    2. "There has been far more evidence of Trump's guilt from the few witnesses this week."

      Help me out. Guilty of what, exactly? Shouldn't we withhold our verdict of guilt until (1) he's been charged with an offense under US Code, (2) we've actually seen the evidence supporting a charge, and (3) he's had his day in court? I'm thinking that you wouldn't make it through the voir dire process of jury selection. Nothing like keeping an open mind, eh?

      Delete
    3. Even Fox News knows Trump opened himself up to witness intimidation charges with Yovanovitch tweet: Law professor

      https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/even-fox-news-knows-trump-opened-himself-up-to-witness-intimidation-charges-with-yovanovitch-tweet-law-professor/

      Delete
    4. You're citing Fox News commentators as an authoritative source now?

      Delete
    5. Leaving out the FOX News reference, the question remains... could Pres Trump's tweet about the ambassador, as she was testifying, be interpreted as trying to intimidate the witness?

      Would it have been seen as such had someone other than a president done so? Or, for instance, if a Democrat president had done so?

      If the answer is no, then we just carry on. If it's yes, then we rightly ask if it rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

      And once again, Pres Trump's style gets him into hot water.

      Delete
    6. The definition of a material witness is any person whose testimony is both relevant to the matter at issue and required in order to resolve the matter. If Ambassador Yovanovitch did not have any first hand information in the matter of President Trump’s interaction with a foreign leader (such interaction being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the office of the president), then she is not a material witness to the issue under investigation and cannot, therefore, be “intimidated” or threatened since she had nothing to contribute to the investigation. Moreover, beyond the possibility of a direct threat to harm another, has there ever been a single case of “assault by tweet” prosecuted in any federal or state court? I'm quite sure it would be impossible to convict Trump for being rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. RN,
      Ahem. What Mustang stated is not "technical" spin. Instead, it was a reasoned and sensible comment.

      FYI: you are testing my patience with some of your inane and insulting comments. Consider yourself warned -- or suffer the consequences. My blog, my rules.

      Delete
    9. Hey Les,

      There is this "technical" thing called, "the law."

      Believe it or not, in our system of justice, Witness Intimidation is an actual thing, with a definition.

      Read More

      Poor Trump haters have not yet realized this is an emotional appeal soap opera meant to incite the soft heads. And its working.

      Delete
    10. Mustang, that there has never been "assault by tweet" does not mean it hasn't happened. Often it takes the law time to catch up to new technologies.

      But I don't think I said assault by tweet, rather I asked the following...

      "Could Pres Trump's tweet about the ambassador, as she was testifying, be interpreted as trying to intimidate the witness?

      Would it have been seen as such had someone other than a president done so? Or, for instance, if a Democrat president had done so?"


      I'm on record a 100 times stating that Trump is our president. Period. I'm still wondering why he persists in a style that does not expand his base, and is the cause of many of his legal and/or political issues.

      Which fits into the question above about accepting, or even seeking counsel.

      Delete
    11. Dave,
      Could Pres Trump's tweet about the ambassador, as she was testifying, be interpreted as trying to intimidate the witness?

      Not unless she is reading the Tweet while she is testifying.

      I note that Adam Schiff made sure that she knew about the Tweet while she was testifying. Was he trying to intimidate her? Hmmmmm?

      Delete
    12. No, he was calling out a bully in real time who was threatening in real time.

      Delete
    13. @ Dave

      I actually think this Dem vs. Rep thing is making us all dumber. Honestly, I don’t have the patience for it. My previous comment was responding to “Goose” but to answer your question, you can’t threaten or intimidate a witness who isn’t a witness to anything. Moreover, if I sent out a tweet to the effect “I’m coming over to your house and you’ll be sorry” and the tweet went out to a thousand people, who have I threatened?

      Ignoring the glowing resume of this Ambassador for a moment, I’d be willing to bet that April Glaspie had a robust resume as well but she was a blithering idiot whose incompetence got us involved in the first Gulf War. Foggy Bottom is a proper term for the State Department; no one there seems to have a clue. It is a real struggle trying to determine which is more inept: Department of State or CIA. In this regard, "Affirmative Action" hasn't done this country much good.

      I also observed earlier that Trump may be a lout, but being brash and uncouth isn’t against the law. Plus, DJT’s presidency may say more about the electorate than it does Trump. In any case, my view is that the impeachment inquiry has but one purpose and nothing to do with actually rendering an indictment.

      Delete
    14. @ Mustang. Amen!

      The fact that we elected DJT--despite his being a brash, uncouth, vulgar lout--is a nuclear repudiation of our political establishment. No amount of "asterisks," hearings or snotty pseudo-official "fact checks" on President Donald J. Trump's presidency can erase that nuclear crater we gouged out of the rotten body politic of this nation.

      Delete
    15. SF,
      The fact that we elected DJT--despite his being a brash, uncouth, vulgar lout--is a nuclear repudiation of our political establishment.

      Yes, indeed! We voted with our middle finger.

      Delete
    16. Witness tampering charges are silly. Jury tampering by tweet however, when the impeachment "goes to court" (enters the Senate) might have some juice. Kellyanne Conway may need to handcuff and ball gag Trump during that phase.

      Delete
    17. TC, Glad you can admit that. The Dems are trying this in the court of public opinion, and crap like this from the President helps his enemies.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. The court that matters is the Senate, as jury of an impeachment trial. Just like elections and just like criminal jury trials, the votes should be secret ballot. Trump can't attack who he doesn't know, and neither can the troglodytes he's whipping up to start a civil war if he's removed by impeachment.

      You know where I stand. When Trump suggested guns be confiscated without due process, Republicans should have draw up their own articles of impeachment. I don't want a President that thinks our Constitution rights are negotiation fodder.

      If the Democrats have concocted their entire impeachment matrix from drinking straws and chewed Bazooka bubble gum, I don't care. Gun grabber gotta go.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. Cue the "Trump is a retard but he means well" defense in 3...2...1

      Delete
    22. TC,
      Actually, you were very anti-Trump before this issue of "red flag" gun laws.

      But I don't disagree with you that such laws abrogate an enumerated Constitutional right.

      I doubt that we'll see any such bill come to Trump's desk. If it does, however, it will have substantial support from Congress critters of BOTH parties.

      Serious discussion of "red flag" laws are popping up here in Virginia since the Dems gained control of the Virginia Assembly. I think that it will be the first law passed here when the assembly convenes in January -- and Virginia Dems have so promised. Yet another reason that Mr. AOW and I are moving to Indiana!

      What really sickens me: the very strong likelihood that such laws will be passed in state after state. Too many in the GOP support such laws!

      Delete
    23. True. I was anti-Trump before he became the first US President to suggest gun confiscations without due process. It's because I know as wishy washy as Trump gets on any issue, he never ever has taken a day off from taking a crap on conservative and libertarian values. I can't trust the guy that couples a morbid admiration for the world's most brutal dictatorships with a desire to dismantle the Constitutional checks on government, including the ones we keep in our gun cabinets. Gun grabber gotta go. If he has accomplices in either or both parties, they gotta go too.

      Delete
    24. TC,
      I can't say for sure, but I think that many who we think won't support "red flag" gun laws.

      My Rule 2 for history: Never trust any politician because all that matters to the vast majority of politicians is getting votes.

      I am very concerned that the vast majority of Americans actually do support "red flag" gun laws.

      Delete
    25. AOW,

      You're moving to the Midwest. The perspective on "the vast majority of Anericans" will change, for the better. We are the last redoubt of sanity.

      Delete
    26. TC,
      We are the last redoubt of sanity.

      That's what I'm seeking -- on several levels.

      Delete
    27. Come what may, I and the patriots of the Virginia Citizens Defense League will hold the line here in the Old Dominion.

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ RN:
      When someone says, "How stupid can you get." don't take it as a personal challenge.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. In her opening statement before a House impeachment hearing on Friday, Yovanovitch said, "although I have met former vice president Joe Biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me."

      But later on, when Rep. Stafanik finally made it pass Chairman Adam Schiff, Stefanik asked Yovanovitch about her previous deposition testimony where she detailed exactly how the Obama State Department had prepared her to handle the issue of Burisma and Hunter Biden during her Senate confirmation hearings.

      "The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings, and this was in the form of practice questions and answers," Stefanik told the former ambassador. "This was your deposition. And you testified in this particular practice Q & A with the Obama State Department, it wasn't just generally about Burisma and corruption. It was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Is that correct?"

      Yovanovitch answered, "Yes. It is."

      So, which "sworn" statement was a lie?

      Delete
    4. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
      (False in one thing, false in everything.)

      Delete
    5. @Warren: BOOM!

      The lefties and the Trump haters haven't even heard of that exchange because the Infotainment Media Complex only feeds them Democrat propaganda.

      Delete
    6. SF, there is no cure for willful ignorance. Some people are willing to eat schiff as long as their "heroes" assure them it's caviar and promise them free stuff.

      Delete
  26. Perhaps one day Silverstrudel we'll meet on the battlefield.

    Until then... kiss off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can't answer simple questions, no prob, just say you refuse to answer. No need to get all snotty and whiny about it.

      Delete
    2. Progressives have been in a propaganda hive echo chamber so long they have rendered themselves, deaf, blind, and incapable of logic, reason, and thoughtful debate.

      It saddens me to see it, and it is one more clawing tear at our social fabric.

      Delete
    3. As have cons and Republicans. But by all means, continue flattering yourseves.

      Delete
    4. Les, I have invited you multiple times to point out where I am wrong, or where I am ignoring something, or engaging in brainless cheerleading.

      Please, point to one of the many comments I have made, and also, tell us what you believe my motives are.

      Notice, I don't try to shout others down. I am inviting you to express yourself and tell me where I am wrong, but you keep getting sidetracked with personal pique and ad hominem invective.

      Delete
    5. Sorry. Your con PC disingenuous BS no longer flies with me. I've observed enough. You convinced me avoiding folks with your proclivities is the proper.

      Delete
    6. You should have stopped at "sorry," since that is an apt description of your pathetic, non-substantive comments here.

      BTW, since you are incoherent and irrational, let me help you out. You constantly showing up here to belch out one more vapid comment is the opposite of avoiding me.

      You are suffering some kind of sickness. You unleashed vulgar tirades against Franco, saying he is beneath contempt or even talking to, and then you continued visiting his blog.

      We'll see how well you avoid folks like me in the coming days and months.

      Will you do like you did at Francos, tearfully shouting how we've seen the last of you, only to come crawling back, sobbing "I just can't quit you!"

      You should seek help.


      OK everybody, and bets on when Les will come crawling back?

      Delete
    7. What's the over/ under on name change posting from the same IP address?

      Delete
    8. TC: Les is known to do that, but his writing style is easily identifiable, and it gives us a good laugh.

      BTW, you also have a unique and pungent style. When you reemerged as TC, we immediately knew the infamous Beamish was back.

      I do admire your biting wit, even if I don't always agree with you. That is what the progressives like Les don't get. You don't have to be perfectly harmonizing in the hallelujah choir all the time. And if you do disagree with someone, that doesn't make them a mortal enemy. The left is a crabbed, stick-up-the-ass, humorless klatch of hive-dwelling crybabies.

      Delete
    9. Well... I did start my TC bit as "The Thought Criminal formerly known as Beamish" before I abbreviated. Later I added the parenthetical echoes to annoy alt-right anti-Semites.

      Delete
    10. Also, I don't have enough familiarity with RN to label him a progressive. He's certainly no Mr. Ducky lol. Me, I'm the same as I've always been. I got off the GOP wagon when the mood was "set your principles aside and vote for Romney anyway." I didn't set my principles aside for Trump either.

      Delete
    11. Here's another twist some 10 years in the making... I used to despise Ducky, now I sometimes ever so slightly appreciate his input. Occasionally. Blue moons.

      Delete
    12. Yeah, I have to thank the Beantown Quacker for introducing me to Matt Taibbi's writings in Rolling Stone.

      Delete
  27. Interesting that BHO wasn't impeached for THIS:

    "Obama Fires AmeriCorps IG Who Identified Millions In Misspent Money." Dated June, 12, 2009.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could assemble a list a mile long.

      Lost in all this is the FACT he allowed Putin to gobble Crimea, and Obungle's tepid response was to send Ukraine blankets and pillows.

      Delete
    2. Let's face it: We are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of men and women. Whoever is on the elite inside gets away with murder. Those on the outside who challenge the system get the entire legal system thrown at them until they are prosecuted or broken and silenced.

      Delete
    3. Crimea is an interesting situation....would you have fought for it?

      Delete
    4. No. I make that provocative statement to frame all this Ukraine BS in its proper context and to poke the blind rage Trump haters (of which I do not consider you a member). Like those on the extreme right, they have no idea of the larger issues involved. They just enjoy screaming themselves hoarse because they hate the President.

      FWIW, Putin took a bite out of Georgia while Bush was in office. The Georgians got too cocky, and Putin let them know who's boss.

      Politics has turned into a Jerry Springer Infotainment Media Propaganda Shiff Show, with the winner being whoever has more hooting idiots on their side making more noise.

      But back to your point, I would not have militarily intervened in Crimea.

      We have been up Ukraine's ass since the wall fell, Georgia as well, and they both teeter precariously, with Putin an enduring threat.

      Meanwhile, the Baltic states, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, etc seem to have sloughed off the Russian bear with minimal US intervention.

      There's a lesson there.

      Another lesson no one in our government seem interested in learning, is how corrupt nations manipulate us to get us to fight their battles, give our stamp of approval to one faction over another, and use well-connected US political cronies to inveigle themselves into our policy-making.

      There are no heroes in this sick, never-ending play, and that includes the US government. I have come to the cynical conclusion that for the biggest players, it really is all about the money.

      For the government apparatchiks who carry out policy, its about the power and prestige.

      These malign forces are as old as human nature itself, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it.

      Delete
    5. That's what I figured, but wanted to be sure. I can disagree with anything you've written. Russia has [since Putin's reign began] sought very specifically to ensure both a land an d a sea route to the Med. Hence, Ukraine/Crimea, Georgia, courting Turkey and propping up Syria.

      Not a bad strategy...if you're Russian.

      Delete
    6. The McCain / Palin campaign at least had some token objection to the Russian invasion of Georgia, but that was back when the Republican Party had foreign policy coherency.

      Delete
    7. TC,
      Yeah but Palin blew it when she shouted from the campaign stump that there was no way in hell under a McCain presidency that the Russians would ever occupy Atlanta.

      Delete
    8. Lol CI. Point stands though. Pierre Dilecto was the last GOP presidential nominee touting a party foreign policy that viewed Russia as an adversary.

      Delete
    9. Sorry SF... I was laughing at your joke on Palin.

      Delete
    10. "Meanwhile, the Baltic states, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, etc seem to have sloughed off the Russian bear with minimal US intervention.

      There's a lesson there."

      Is that lesson something about the EU?

      Delete
    11. Jez, the lesson is, we don't need to be aggressively barging in everywhere.

      The US has become King Midas in Reverse. Everything we touch turns to crap.

      Delete
  28. I have $100 in Bitcoin sez RN USA's return here will happen before President Trump's impeachment.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective