The Frankish Reich

Problem is he’s not a milk toast. He is smart, hugely ambitious, and will already be planning for his coronation in 2028.

This is why I say “I don’t hate it” (choosing Vance). The real choice here was between a true MAGA believer (think Kristi Noem) and a full or crap sycophant who pretended to be a Trumpy when it became politically advantageous to do so. Heck, if I was NC Bills I’d say this is proof that the unitary remains in charge. We’re gearing up for the former McKinsey consultant, ivy leaguer married to an Ivy leaguer, globalist. It’s just like how Bush 41, the ultimate insider, followed the renegade Reagan.

Vance’s wife also clerked for BOTH Kavanaugh and Roberts, which can’t hurt if, you know, there’s election litigation again.

In honor of the new prospective Veep.

This is where we are. A reminder to “stick to the facts” is now biased.

I don’t hate it. Even you MSM haters should look at the long interview Ross Douthut at the NYT did with Vance. Douthut (a lonely Republican there) has some hope that Vance is putting actual policy meat onto the MAGA nationalist/populist bones.

She's the natural one!

If so, that'll really put the investment banker/Black Rock/Military Industrial crowd in their place! At least he didn't go with winner winner chicken dinner.

Yes, it's a stupid take. They're saying Trump is going to take a different tack in his speech. I really hope so, but I'm not optimistic. This is as stupid as the "what was really going on with Paul Pelosi?" crap. He was shot. Period. Sometimes crazy/bad things happen because there are crazy/bad people out there.

I like it! I somehow forgot about that Cheap Shot to End All Cheap Shots. He belongs on Mt Rushmore. I'll have him take Roger Staubach's case. That stems more from my frustration that the networks actually promoted the America's Team thing, and he (and Landry) were the faces of that.

True. As for the rest: we all have political biases, including judges. Maybe even more so for federal judges, who are appointed by the President, serve life terms, and are in many cases people who've been involved in political campaigns or at least partisan causes. So we know that. I think I'm pretty fair as a lawyer (and for a long time, a federal government lawyer): I don't like advancing legal arguments that ignore the context of a law or the practical implications of a decision. I think that's a conservative value - unless there's a really damn good reason to upend a well-understood meaning of the law or a clause of the constitution, we should continue along the set path. That path set expectations, and people conformed (or should have conformed) their behavior to those expectations.

What do you think of the Eastman plan to refuse to have Pence refuse to certify the election, send the certifications back to certain states, and have the Republican legislatures of those states certify alternate (Trump/Pence) slates? That plan relied on finding loopholes in the constitution and the statutes implementing it. It was a cynical effort to misread the object and purpose of the law without expressly violating any specific term of it. Pence's own counsel found it to be an unconstitutional stretch. I am not arguing the ultra-legalistic "Poindexter" (haven't heard that since I was a kid!) approach. The Eastman ploy was based on a cynical misreading of the constitution (as the California State Bar has found). Cannon's decision here is also based on a cynical "Poindexter-ish" missing-the-forest-for-the-trees misreading of the Appointments Clause.

Idiot who will wait for Jack Posobiec's two-sentence take on a well-researched and corroborated story. Which will no doubt pick on some phrase in the story that he can claim shows some kind of pro-China bias. In a story that is 100% anti-China.

Meanwhile, over at the MSM, a really good report by the NYT today on China's military base in Cambodia. It's fine and wonderful and all First Amendment-y to have all these Twitter hot take monkeys ready to comment on a story, but first someone has to unearth the story. Which is what that pinnacle of the MSM does here in a way that calls out China for its lies and military ambitions. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/14/world/asia/china-cambodia-military-warship-base.html

Do you see anything wrong in the "explosive" memory Mr. Draino is citing? It reminds that media company's reporters (Fox News?) to report that facts and not to speculate in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. I thought that was good journalism.

Another incredibly lazy "the MSM is against us" take. Here's the mainstream WSJ's take: The shooter alone is responsible for his actions. But leaders on both sides need to stop describing the stakes of the election in apocalyptic terms. Democracy won’t end if one or the other candidate is elected. Fascism is not aborning if Mr. Trump wins, unless you have little faith in American institutions. We agree with former Attorney General Bill Barr’s statement Saturday night: “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy—he is not.”

It isn't a good legal argument.

The first "leak"

That's real confusing for people like you who can't read the sub-headline? It's literally right there in the tweet: "The campaign has raised over $200,000 for the families of the victims who were wounded or killed." And Newseek isn't exactly an MSM source these days. Get over your persecution complex! I can't get past that sweaty bald head. Sorry.

Wow, pretty damning there Mr. "DC Draino" A news outlet reminding it's reporters to follow what they learned in Journalism 101.

That is probably true as a public opinion matter (and is obviously true as it relates to Republicans). But as a legal matter, the AG still had ultimate authority over Smith's decisions. He was a "special counsel," not the old "independent counsel." The decision is flat wrong as a legal matter given how this has always been interpreted, until Clarence Thomas's opinion (not the majority) a couple weeks ago gave her cover to do this. Another reason Thomas should have recused.

Check out Stepfanie's X right now! The nip slips are not accidental. NSFW. Thanks for giving her just a little more free publicity.

You mean I can't even watch Kung Fu Panda 4?

This is why I've been guessing Burgum. Who the hell would vote for him in 2028? He got like 1 percent in the primaries and that was because he was giving away gift cards to boost his polling so he could qualify for debates. No one allowed to get in the way of Don Jr. 2028 ... Because he's as unlikable as Kamala?

The thing I left out: they became deeply embarrassed by how close (and supportive by allowing him to talk freely for half an hour at a time) they were to Trump, and they've spent the last 8 years trying to make you forget that by their constant anti-Trump drumbeat. They were happy to be the Hannity & Wife of the Left. It made them the darlings of the liberal social/party circuit and they've loved it.