SectionC3

Alternate title: Donald Trump dresses as a hippo and has to drop a deuce in Rock Creek Park after record McNugget binge.

“Ballsy Ford?” Not cool, and also not funny. And no, I don’t recall either your question or its context. FYI - Clarence Thomas was a Coke can. That had a ***** hair on it. Allegedly. And Bork was spiked for professional reasons.

Fake news. This is why you’re on the washed up psycho list. A couple of people arrived and disrupted your hoaxy deep state echo chamber and you don’t like it. Too bad.

I agree with you to the extent you contend that it was too late to spike Kavanaugh on that issue, and that it sucked to do it to him on national TV in front of his family. It was dirty politics bereft of concern for, among other things, even the victim. But I don’t feel terribly badly for him because I believe her. He’s a d-bag, and while the proverbial statute ran on what he did, I’m not crying any tears for him.

Hoax. He’s reasonable. You’re on the washed up psycho list.

Hoax.

Yup. Assuming she testified either falsely or mistakenly, I thought his conduct was unbecoming a judge. The proper course would have been to have apologized for the harm in her life and to steadfastly but calmly and assertively state that she identifies the wrong guy. You wanna be a judge? That’s how you’re supposed to act. Not flipping pages like a lunatic, ranting about beer, and making up BS stories about the chauvinistic lies you put in your HS yearbook. And since I believe her, my general view is that the little show he put on was a lousy act.

Really. Normally the higher you get the better the people are (someone who gets that high usually has to be likable). The fact that I feel that way about Kavanaugh should tell you something. To me the worst part of the hearing wasnt the Ford testimony. It was Kavanaugh’s response and his awful temperament.

“Molesting” is an intentionally incendiary word and, in any event, Joe Biden is not the issue here. I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them. I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases. I believe his accuser. *** Two additional points. 1. Someone can fear flying but still take a plane. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. 2. Corroboration is of course preferred but not essential in a sexual assault case. The very nature of the act often does not lend itself to corroboration. Google the “prompt outcry” rule. You’ll find that courts are lenient on admitting such evidence (the outcry sometimes is far from what most would consider prompt) because of the shame in disclosing a sexual assault to another person.

It’s hard to do such things. Normally you wouldn’t see a “stale” claim like this because the criminal and civil statutes of limitation would have run. The Kavanaugh instance was an outlier; apparently somebody who felt strongly about something terrible that happened earlier in her life felt compelled to speak up about it when the career arc of the alleged perpetrator became too much for her to handle. We also see it in aged cases involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of religious orders. But the bottom line is something this stale normally doesn’t come up because there’s no incentive for the alleged victim to “out” himself or herself as a victim of sexual abuse. It’s impossible to know such a thing. But it is possible to have an opinion. My opinion is based on his poor, defiant temperament, my belief in his accuser’s testimony, the general story of his formative years and professional background that was told through his confirmation proceeding, and my intuition (based in part on the coupling of his background with his hiring practices) that he is not a good guy.

The Sierra Club case didn’t result in an injunction. I don’t know the status of the “other” case challenging the constitutionality of the reprogramming. The direct answer to your question, though, is that agencies and other entities subject to the the control of the executive branch are following the directive of their superior to construct a wall using monies that were not constitutionally obtained and the courts have not had proper occasion to enjoin the construction.

Agreed on 11th hour. Kavanaugh is a d-bag, but the time to try to play that card against him had passed. Elections have consequences, and the Republicans got to pick their guy. That’s the way it goes. Disagreed on “real evidence.” She had her (powerful) testimony, which in many cases like this is just about all that the victim can come up with.

Personally I think Kavanaugh is a partisan d-bag, but I will agree with you that he was smeared and that what happened there was wrong. Elections have consequences, and they were entitled to their judge.

Border wall national emergency declaration to secure funds Congress wouldn’t approve. It’s a travesty. Stuff like (admittedly I don’t have more specifics here) the late-night firing of an Inspector General. The shenanigans described in Volume II of the Mueller report (that’s not a political statement; just read the report - what he did was BS from a rule of law perspective). Toeing the line on the emoluments clause. The “absolute authority” nonsense. His “fake news” tropes to fool his followers. Attaching his name to the recent stimulus checks. The fascination with strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un (and comments made in support thereof). And that’s just ff the top of my head. *** I don’t detest this guy because of policy. I don’t necessarily like all of his policies, but that’s how things work in this country. We don’t agree on everything all of the time. I detest this guy because the truth is a matter of convenience for him. And what he’s done with respect to the truth and the usurpation of presidential power strikes at the core of of our democracy. I appreciate that his views on wedge issues and economics have caused some to hold their noses and support this guy. But the price of victory should be too great for those people given that it shakes the foundations of our democracy. I’m sorry but you’re just flat wrong and miles out of your depth. The declaration was used to reappropriate funds for border wall construction that Congress had approved for purposes other than the wall. The first article of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress had to approve funds for wall construction. It didn’t. So the prez tried to backdoor the money through the NEA. That approach simply is not constitutional.

We can disagree on policy, you and I, but we agree on doing the mechanics the right way. Great post.

The border wall national emergency maneuver is a quintessential overreach and a trampling of the United States constitution. Facilitated by a dumb law, to be sure, but still an overreach.

Thanks. We’ll see how it plays out. This is such a bizarre year. Joe Biden from 10 years ago would have been a great candidate. This version of Joe . . . It’s sort of sad that the Democrats couldn’t come up with a transformational or even marginally better candidate to run against one of the most divisive figures in our country’s history. It’s even stranger that Biden is holding his own simply by sitting at home. But ultimately the fact that Biden came out of the primaries probably says that middle America wants someone who is reasonable, moderate, and “straight” (in a political and ethical context) to take the reigns. Time will tell. Ultimately I think the whole thing turns on how things are in October with respect to the pandemic and the economy. If things are looking up on those fronts, Trump might squeak by. If not, a scarecrow running against him would win. And even if the economy and the pandemic are “good,” there might be enough people in the “middle” who are sick enough of the BS for Biden to sneak in.

The trajectory of her polling data by mid-summer will dictate whether she is the pick. Biden has a bit of a dilemma on his hands. He has to pick a female running mate, both for practical reasons and because he locked himself in there. He owes the African-American community for his miraculous turnaround in the primaries, and he probably should pick an African-American running mate for that reason. The most palatable one to the broadest group of people probably is Kamala Harris, but she isn’t going to deliver a state. If Stacey Abrams could so deliver, she probably would have won Georgia. But Whitmer might be able to deliver Michigan, and Biden probably can deliver African-Americans on his own. If the polls suggest as much for Whitmer, she might be the pick. All this said, I’d try to find an Hispanic woman to put on the ticket, hope Biden can do the work in the Great Lakes, and make Trump play defense in Texas, Arizona, and Florida. But Biden has to be confident in his ability to win one or both of Pennsylvania and Michigan on his own, and to deliver Obama-ish African-American turnout, for that to happen.

About the veracity issue and the character question my responses would be the same. This guy is a scumbag. On the policy issues . . . I don’t think there’s room for conversation on some of his planks because they never would have survived the scrutiny of a Democratic primary (e.g., sea to sea border wall, protectionism, “spend and hope” economics, repeal and replace).

I couldn’t care less about Trump’s finances. What I care about is having a leader who tells the truth. The return issue has the stench of another instance in which this guy is not telling the truth.

I think Trump himself said in 2016 that he pays no income taxes. “Because I’m smart!” Was the explanation, if I recall correctly. They’ll show he’s not earning nearly as much as he has suggested. Which will be another link the Trump is a fraud chain.

This is where we part ways. The “ahead of his skis” could occur after initially referring to the drug, perhaps in having Jared buy millions of doses on spec, or perhaps in taking it as a prophylactic when there’s not thing to suggest that it’s a good idea for him. Bottom line: he took a shot on something unproven when he first took an interest in the pandemic. There’s nothing wrong with that. But then when it turned out that the efficacy of the drug is limited at best in this context, instead of admitting he chased a ghost he doubled down. And that’s where he got himself in (even more) trouble. The AZ docs are part of a group with some questionable theories. Take it for what it’s worth.

I agree with just about all of this. I appreciate that there is a cost/benefit to HCQ and, after careful medical consideration, for some the potential benefit may outweigh the potential cost. I also appreciate the acknowledgment over the partisan histrionics. My issue isn't with HCQ, it's the clinging to the lie about the efficacy of the drug. You're right; Trump is partisan in his support for something on which he obviously got ahead of his skis, and the other side probably harps on it more than is necessary because it's an easy way to illustrate and to take issue with his BS.

There are some dumb doctors out there. Google Eugene Gosy. I know better than that guy, having dealt with him in the past. I recognize the obvious dangers of opioid addiction. He did not. Here, Trump's physician seems to be taking a minority approach to the prophylactic issue, which is especially questionable given that it is a preventative measure for a condition that has not yet arisen, rather than a treatment option for an existing condition. Frankly, the physician should recommend that Trump also take additional, more conservative precautions, such as practicing social distancing and wearing an appropriate mask. It's odd that the physician will (apparently) recommend a precaution that increases the risk of heart attack (to my knowledge), but seemingly hasn't pushed Trump to use the aforementioned precautions that do not have potentially deadly side effects. Short answer: in this instance, Internet message board guy has a better plan that Trump's physician. For sure.

"Heard" is the problem that I have with it. Heard, to me, sounds anecdotal. And anecdotal use might result in unintended consequences (e.g., a person who might be at greater risk for a known side effect takes HCQ prophylactically and ends up having a heart attack or a stroke or something worse than COVID). I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, but I believe that things should be done scientifically. For the average person to whack some of this stuff down prophylactically flirts with irresponsibility. And for Trump to model it . . . enough said.