The Crackpot Dome Scandal Impeachment Strategy

Greg Sargent at The Post talked to Rep. Schiff about how the Democrats might proceed with impeachment since the Trump administration has declared itself above the law:

There has been some suggestion that Democrats would give up on the courts, and merely take all of this stonewalling and make it the subject of an article of impeachment for obstructing Congress.

But Schiff told me that Democrats have the option of doing both simultaneously, though he cautioned that no decisions had been made.

“I do not foreclose at all other efforts in parallel to make sure we fully find out all the facts, including court,” Schiff said. He noted that if the administration fought these efforts, “that will not delay us from going forward with articles of impeachment if they are warranted by the president’s obstruction.”

“We need to protect the country,” Schiff said. “We need to expose whatever wrongdoing has gone on. That work is going to have to proceed.”

Schiff noted, crucially, that Democrats could continue to fight for information in court even after the House voted to impeach — which could potentially lay the groundwork for additional articles later.

“If it is necessary to go down the road of other articles of impeachment, then presumably there will be a trial in the Senate,” Schiff said. “I don’t think there’s a court in the land that will preclude the Congress from getting the evidence it needs at trial.”

Neal Katyal (former acting solicitor general in the Obama admin) reminds us that the first article of impeachment prepared for Nixon addressed that administration’s stonewalling:

in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, [he] has … withh[eld] relevant& material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers … of the US…

I’m not sure what timing considerations the House Dems are wrestling with as they map out an impeachment strategy, nor how long it takes for courts to process subpoena demands, etc. I also have no idea what other information is working its way through the system via whistleblowers or how many additional brave souls might step up in defiance of the Trump admin’s attempts to sweep this mess under the rug.

What I do know is that it took an absurd spectacle to bring Trump to power, and it will take another gaudy extravaganza to oust the motherfucker. Impeaching Trump for not giving up documents doesn’t seem like it would lend itself to a media bonanza, but maybe with the right stage management and compelling witnesses…

Anyhoo, to paraphrase Conan the Barbarian, the best punishment for the scandal-ridden Trump presidency would be to crush Republicans, see them driven before Democrats, and to hear the lamentations of Liz Cheney and Nikki Haley.

But while total victory will likely remain elusive, there are less consequential, ongoing humiliations we can savor right now, such as that of Mike “Swagger” Pompeo and formerly respected establishment figure Bill Barr, who are being stripped of their unearned reputations and exposed as partisan goons. The same goes for Congressional Republicans who’re hiding out or making ridiculous excuses for Trump’s lawlessness.

The same also goes for the “respectable” conservative media personalities who are defending a rapidly unspooling demagogue and his gang of enablers. Polling on impeachment suggests that people are starting to pay attention and detect a distinct whiff of rat. The longer all of these hacks wilt in the glare of the spotlight, the more corrupt and foolish they look, and that’s a good thing. For these reasons, I hope House Democrats aren’t in a huge rush.

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham, his undergarments all a-twist because of House impeachment activities, retaliated this morning by inviting Rudy “Colludey” Giuliani to visit the Senate and share his views about how Clinton and Soros framed the Russians in 2016 to get Trump. Am I the only one who thinks Rudy taking his Crackpot Dome road show to the Senate might not evolve to Trump’s benefit?

Open thread.






153 replies
  1. 1

    Just a reminder….

    Happy Supreme Court day when the existence of lgbt people are going to be argued before 9 straight people.

    I love it when the straight majority gets to debate my right to exist and hold a job.

    Feels so welcoming.

    https://twitter.com/LisaTalmadge/status/1181565703649923073

    Today the SCOTUS hears arguments in three LGBTQ job discrimination cases that could have a devastating impact and overturn decades of precedent — and potentially undermine much broader anti-sex discrimination protections for straight cisgender people as well. This is a BF-fucking-D.

    Given the current court, things are looking ominous. If you know someone who’s LGBTQ, show them some extra support today, we could use it.

    A quick summary of what’s at stake and the hate groups behind these cases who want to erase trans people. Teen Vogue focuses on the broader implications for anyone who does not conform to outdated gender stereotypes.

    ReplyReply
  2. 2
    MattF says:

    Am I the only one who thinks Rudy taking his Crackpot Dome road show to the Senate might not evolve to Trump’s benefit?

    Depends on who gets to question Giuliani. Also, Giuliani’s manic ‘I’m a lawyer, and I yell at you’ act will appeal to some in the Senate.

    ReplyReply
  3. 3
    cope says:

    Do republicans need X-ray specs to see the true visage of Mr. Rudy Giuliani? Are they that completely unaware? He is a disaster on the teevee shows so just imagine his reactions in a venue where somebody actually hostile to him gets to poke and prod at his open sores.

    ReplyReply
  4. 4
    dmsilev says:

    @MattF: Unless Graham completely bars any Democrat from asking any question (which I could certainly see him doing), Rudy is very likely to self-immolate.

    ReplyReply
  5. 5
    germy says:

    The republicans had immediate plans to impeach Hillary Clinton, even before the election. Lots of them were disappointed when she lost. Like taking a chew toy away from a dog.

    ReplyReply
  6. 6
    rikyrah says:

    @Sister Golden Bear:

    I saw your posts on the overnight threads.
    Like yourself, I am suspicious of this Court. We will see, but, I think shyt will depend upon Roberts, and I never like anything depending upon Roberts.

    ReplyReply
  7. 7
    Kay says:

    Let’s address that issue in a moment. But first, a more immediate question—one that Washington has been asking for the good part of a year: What has gotten into mainstream Republican, über-decent Bill Barr?
    Many who have known and respected him over the last few decades were baffled when he signed on to head the Justice Department. “What was he thinking?” one former colleague remarked. “Everyone knew what Donald Trump was. Barr didn’t need the job.

    This is turning into a common theme. Anguished questions from the people who respected these people. Promoted them.

    Okay, so at what point do they look to themselves? If the people you respect consistently turn out to be lying scumbags is the universe at fault? Or are you a poor judge of character who admires bad people?

    He’s no godammned different now than he was then. People don’t drop their entire character and ethical values overnight. That’s not how that works. You were FOOLED. You fell for it. And what does that mean for us, the people in the cheap seats? We shouldn’t listen to you- you exhibit poor judgment. Consistently. Over and over and over.

    I had a bad boyfriend in my twenties. Bad person. But there I was, defending him. He got worse and when I realized that this is what he was I didn’t insist he had shape-changed and I was RIGHT to defend him! I looked at why I defended a creep. My judgment was in error. He stayed the same throughout.

    ReplyReply
  8. 8
    catclub says:

    I think there was an impulse to get it all over really fast when they released that transcript. I would guess that was the genius idea of Trump.
    A quick vote in the senate, with still united GOP bloc, would be ideal.

    Now, obstruct and delay is the message of the day. Because the House investigation will not be rushed.
    So this will simply drag on, delayed throughout next year.

    ReplyReply
  9. 9
    Mike in DC says:

    As I suggested in a previous thread:
    1. Hold a formal vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry, to knock out that talking point and display strength
    2. Hold another vote “pre-authorizing” inherent contempt for non-complying witnesses and document custodians
    3. Add a “sense of the House” resolution that US v Nixon precludes the use of executive privilege in impeachment proceedings
    4, Make a public statement that the House will expedite any legal challenges to further subpoenas by going directly to SCOTUS, since impeachment is an urgent matter of the highest importance
    5. Make arrangements with Capitol Police to enforce inherent contempt if necessary

    In other words, if they’re going to play hardball, show them what hardball really is.

    ReplyReply
  10. 10
    rikyrah says:

    @MattF:

    Depends on who gets to question Giuliani.

    If he sits his azz down in front of the committee, the committee members get to question him.

    ReplyReply
  11. 11
    SFAW says:

    @dmsilev:

    Unless Graham completely bars any Democrat from asking any question (which I could certainly see him doing),

    Few things would surprise me less.

    ReplyReply
  12. 12
    rikyrah says:

    Impeach Pompeo and Barr first.

    ReplyReply
  13. 13
    catclub says:

    @Kay: Barr earned his criminal GOP lawyer stripes getting pardons for all at the end of Iran Contra.
    Nothing he does here is a surprise.

    ReplyReply
  14. 14
    SFAW says:

    Rudy “Colludey”

    This one needs to be on an endless loop.

    ReplyReply
  15. 15
    Betty Cracker says:

    @rikyrah: One senator on that committee is aware of this:

    :)

    ReplyReply
  16. 16
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    I’m going to say this again….

    I have certain folks that I trust when looking at judges and legal arena. I trust their judgement, and the history that they know about these people.

    TO.A.ONE…

    the people that I read and look to…

    SAID BARR WAS A BAD NOMINEE AND TO NOT APPROVE HIM.

    TO.A.ONE.

    I have said that they – the MSM – have been desperate to find their ‘ regular’ Republican. Look at all the time that they spent trying to normalize Dolt45.

    Barr was a shady, racist criminal all along.
    You only had to not be a desperate member of the Village to see it.

    ReplyReply
  17. 17
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Mike in DC: If all of that is doable, I agree, but I see conflicting reports of what is or is not doable.

    ReplyReply
  18. 18
    SFAW says:

    @rikyrah:

    Impeach Pompeo and Barr first.

    Agree, but Barr needs to be the first one to go: at least then, there is a chance — probably infinitesimally small, but still non-zero — that the country would end up with someone who will not act as the Traitor-in-Chief’s consigliere, and will actually enforce the laws without considering whether the Traitor is involved. Yeah, I know, I know — and there’ll be a pony for everyone.

    Of course, there is also a non-zero chance we’d end up with someone worse

    ReplyReply
  19. 19
    Kay says:

    I don’t know about a strategy but if I were in the Democrats political arm I would just repeat, over and over, that they’re hiding and won’t come clean.

    It will absolutely work. People believe that because it’s so often true. It’s true in this case. They don’t want these people interviewed because they want to hide what happened from the public. Majorities already believe Trump is a liar. He is, obviously. He starts with a credibility problem and then he refuses transparency. It’s a slam dunk. It’s political malpractice NOT to do it.

    ReplyReply
  20. 20
    Cacti says:

    When the House exercises its impeachment authority, it’s at the height of its Constitutional powers. No opinion of the courts necessary.

    The House can and should find that any failure to produce subpoenaed documents or witnesses is evidence that they would tend to prove guilt.

    No reason to give some wingnut Judge a chance to muddy the waters on Trump’s behalf.

    ReplyReply
  21. 21
    Kay says:

    And political media insist Trump is untouchable but that’s not true either. He’s an unpopular President and most people polled think he’s a liar. Only in NYTimes world is that considered masterful political strategy.

    They already know he’s a liar. Tell them again. And again. Ask over and over why they won’t come clean. These are supposedly professionals. What is it about the “work” that they do that they are scared to death for the public to see it? It’s an admission, basically.

    ReplyReply
  22. 22
    topclimber says:

    So perhaps a variant of what did the President know and when did he know it?

    Except people would believe the GOP apologists that the answers are: Not much of anything and he forgot it all anyway. The classic he is an idiot defense, vouched for by the vast majority of Americans when linked to Trump.

    ReplyReply
  23. 23
    Kent says:

    @Mike in DC:

    As I suggested in a previous thread:
    1. Hold a formal vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry, to knock out that talking point and display strength
    2. Hold another vote “pre-authorizing” inherent contempt for non-complying witnesses and document custodians
    3. Add a “sense of the House” resolution that US v Nixon precludes the use of executive privilege in impeachment proceedings
    4, Make a public statement that the House will expedite any legal challenges to further subpoenas by going directly to SCOTUS, since impeachment is an urgent matter of the highest importance
    5. Make arrangements with Capitol Police to enforce inherent contempt if necessary

    In other words, if they’re going to play hardball, show them what hardball really is.

    And also remind these fuckers that the statute of limitations on these crimes of obstruction do not expire on January 20, 2021. Attorney General Harris will be delighted to uproot their posh lives and throw the stinking lot of them in prison for obstruction.

    ReplyReply
  24. 24
    catclub says:

    @Kay:

    They don’t want these people interviewed because they want to hide what happened from the public. Majorities already believe Trump is a liar. He is, obviously. He starts with a credibility problem and then he refuses transparency.

    I wish the case for this was clearer.

    Because if true,
    Trump’s approval would be plummeting since for the past three years he has not released his tax forms?
    But his approval has just stayed about the same the whole time. Delay and zero transparency has worked really well for him, so far.

    ReplyReply
  25. 25
    Kent says:

    @Kay:

    I don’t know about a strategy but if I were in the Democrats political arm I would just repeat, over and over, that they’re hiding and won’t come clean.

    It will absolutely work. People believe that because it’s so often true. It’s true in this case. They don’t want these people interviewed because they want to hide what happened from the public. Majorities already believe Trump is a liar. He is, obviously. He starts with a credibility problem and then he refuses transparency. It’s a slam dunk. It’s political malpractice NOT to do it.

    Play the tape of Trump saying that EXACT SAME THING with respect to the 5th Amendement again and again.

    ReplyReply
  26. 26
    Shalimar says:

    @Kent: And Attorney General Harris will get her opportunity to lay the groundwork for Rudy’s prosecution in the testimony Graham scheduled. This is not going to go well for him.

    ReplyReply
  27. 27
    Kay says:

    @rikyrah:

    I don’t even know what “character” means if these people supposedly have it. Just in the last week who did they throw under the Trump bus?

    1. Hong Kong protestors
    2. 2 million Kurds

    Before that? All US African Americans and all immigrants. Most women. Immigrant babies. Was trampling the immigrant babies in their rush to show fealty to Dear Leader an indication that they MIGHT be bad people?

    ReplyReply
  28. 28
    chopper says:

    Neal Katyal (former acting solicitor general in the Obama admin) reminds us that the first article of impeachment prepared for Nixon addressed that administration’s stonewalling:

    unfortunately, trump, his entire political party, and 30-something percent of the country honestly don’t really think nixon did anything wrong in the first place.

    ReplyReply
  29. 29
    catclub says:

    @Kent: any prosecution of Republicans by Democrats will be cast in the media as criminalizing policy differences.

    Never mind: A) GOP prosecuting Democrats does not get that treatment
    B) It is not policy differences, it is crimes.
    C) Obama ignored all the CIA contractors who were involved in torture – look forward, not back. Also Bankers.

    ReplyReply
  30. 30
    catclub says:

    kudos to BC for the post title

    ReplyReply
  31. 31
    Kay says:

    @Kent:

    Right, and they have the 5th, so we need not worry about their rights. They get the same rights as every other American. No more, but no less either. They can even have appointed counsel, but it has to come from the public defender list. I’m not paying cable tv lawyer rates. Competent counsel, which given what we’ve seen so far from Rudy might be an upgrade.

    ReplyReply
  32. 32
    hells littlest angel says:

    On the lighter side of impeachment, this was a real WaPo headline yesterday:

    Melania Trump seems unfazed by husband’s possible impeachment

    She don’t really care, do u?

    ReplyReply
  33. 33
    dmsilev says:

    @Kay:

    He’s an unpopular President and most people polled think he’s a liar.

    The Post had a poll out today. 58% of the country, including 30% of Republicans, support starting an impeachment inquiry. 49% support not just starting an inquiry but already are in favor of a vote to impeach and remove him. 20% of Republicans support removing him from office.

    ReplyReply
  34. 34
    cain says:

    We need to figure out a way to get Trump to say out loud that he will direct his people to testify in congress. I think he can be completely goaded into doing that. Just have to ask the right questions.
    Once that happens, you harp on these fools and get them to show up because the President ordered it. If that doesn’t happen, just start accusing them of defying the President and Congress.
    We need to figure out how to make Trump’s narcissism work for us so that we can make him put his people into uncomfortable situations. Enough so that they are forced to leave or feel uncomfortable that Trump would support them.

    ReplyReply
  35. 35
    Kent says:

    @catclub:

    @Kent: any prosecution of Republicans by Democrats will be cast in the media as criminalizing policy differences.

    Never mind: A) GOP prosecuting Democrats does not get that treatment
    B) It is not policy differences, it is crimes.
    C) Obama ignored all the CIA contractors who were involved in torture – look forward, not back. Also Bankers.

    I totally agree it will be cast that way. But at some point you just have to do the right thing and to hell with it. We already know that the GOP is going to completely obstruct any new Dem administration. So fuck it. Who cares about the “perceptions” of the mainstream media and who cares about the “feelings” of Mitch McConnell. There is really no downside to a scorched earth policy anymore. the GOP have been scorching the earth for 2 decades since the election of Bill Clinton. Fuck them. Nothing is gained by being nice. That is the world they have created by their endless investigations and obstruction leading up to Garland.

    And honestly they are actually doing the same damn thing with their CURRENT investigation of everyone who ever sent Hillary an email.

    ReplyReply
  36. 36
    Betty Cracker says:

    @hells littlest angel: How can they tell? If that woman accidentally jogged into a concrete lamppost, her expression wouldn’t change in the slightest. I don’t think it’s necessarily Botox either; she was born with that perpetual scowl.

    ReplyReply
  37. 37
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Kay: A lot of the people who have been exposed by working for this president came up through government service in institutions that had strict parameters for behavior. GEN Kelly in the USMC is a good example. There were rules for behavior with serious consequences for disobedience. Kelly didn’t need to be a good person; he just needed to operate within the rules. Doing that happened to give him the appearance of being a good and honorable person. Once he entered this administration, he was operating in an environment where no such rules existed. He was relatively free to behave any way he chose. At this point, his character was finally revealed.

    I would not be surprised if people looked back at his record and found some small but consistent acts of discrimination. CPT Ramirez getting rated as very good, but CPT White getting rated as excellent – things like that. Over time, Ramirez gets promoted just a little slower than White and ends up retiring as a Colonel while White gets a star.

    ReplyReply
  38. 38
    jeffreyw says:

    Good. I have questions. https://t.co/Ty8QMQzAp4— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 8, 2019

    ReplyReply
  39. 39
    Aleta says:

    Lawrence Hurley @lawrencehurley
    After Title VII arguments, Justice Gorsuch think the textual arguments are a close thing, but he’s worried about court going beyond its role and the “massive social upheaval” that could result from a ruling in favor of plaintiffs

    Elie Mystal @ElieNYC
    If everybody cramming into Court today to see them nullify gay rights could tweet about the importance of having cameras for oral arguments, I’d appreciate it.

    ReplyReply
  40. 40
    cain says:

    @dmsilev:

    The Post had a poll out today. 58% of the country, including 30% of Republicans, support starting an impeachment inquiry. 49% support not just starting an inquiry but already are in favor of a vote to impeach and remove him. 20% of Republicans support removing him from office.

    It’s only a matter of time before he pisses off the military families. I’m sure they are already angry about abandoning the Kurds to their faith. America the betrayer, that doesn’t live up to its promises. That’s gotta hurt. It sure hurts me.
    That signals that the U.S. is for sale to any dictator in the world.

    ReplyReply
  41. 41
    scav says:

    There’s what comes out their lips in public, especially in response to any perceived adversarial audience, and there’s the little nagging interior voice in the dead of night and the whispered asides to known allies: They know their asses look humungous in their current nether-garments and increasingly exposed. There’s something to be said for quietly putting up lots of mirrors so they can appreciate themselves fully in all their angles in public.

    ReplyReply
  42. 42
    Anonymous At Work says:

    @Betty Cracker: “I need 3 new changes of underwear to GOP Senate Caucus room! STAT!!!”

    The only, ONLY, downside to Warren and/or Harris becoming Prez/VP will be losing their ability to question witnesses under oath in the Senate.

    ReplyReply
  43. 43
    Jeffro says:

    @Kay: “no one prevents a witness who will exonerate him from testifying “

    ReplyReply
  44. 44
    hells littlest angel says:

    @Betty Cracker: I’m pretty sure she’d be unfazed watching Donald being fed into a wood chipper.

    ReplyReply
  45. 45
    cckids says:

    @chopper:

    unfortunately, trump, his entire political party, and 30-something percent of the country honestly don’t really think nixon did anything wrong in the first place.

    He got caught. THAT’S what Nixon did wrong.

    ReplyReply
  46. 46
    Millard Filmore says:

    @rikyrah:

    Impeach Pompeo and Barr first.

    OK, impeach them first. Then what? The Republican Senate will not convict. What is the advantage here?

    ReplyReply
  47. 47
    Belafon says:

    Betty, your Post link goes to an opinion about the SCOTUS trans gender case.

    ReplyReply
  48. 48
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Belafon: Thanks — fixed!

    ReplyReply
  49. 49
    JPL says:

    @Sister Golden Bear: I’m sickened that they agreed to hear this. Amy Howe at Scotusblog suggested Gorsuch as a slight possibility for upholding gay rights, and on another feed someone mentioned Kavanaugh as possible but not likely.
    History will not be kind to the Roberts court.

    ReplyReply
  50. 50
    Mandalay says:

    @Sister Golden Bear:

    the straight majority gets to debate my right to exist and hold a job

    Not to derail your valid point, but more generally, straight white men pretty much get to determine everything in this country.

    ReplyReply
  51. 51
    Jeffro says:

    DOJ just refused to turn over Mueller grand jury materials

    “Nixon was railroaded!”, indeed

    ReplyReply
  52. 52
    Kay says:

    @Jeffro:

    Right, because it’s not a court proceeding. They shouldn’t treat it like one. I hate the impeachment process because it’s so fuzzy and elastic, but if that’s what we have they should use that to their advantage. They have what they need to impeach anyway. Now it’s just stage management. They’ve been doing pretty good, too. The support for impeachment is rising, not falling. They just need to keep at it. I hope they get outside help. They don’t need a good litigator for legal issues, they need a litigator for trial planning. Tell the story.

    ReplyReply
  53. 53
    catclub says:

    @Belafon: Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    ReplyReply
  54. 54
    cain says:

    While SCOTUS might stop gay rights – society have already decided that gay rights is important, SCOTUS will be completely out of touch with what society feels about this and that means that businesses are going to have to a hard time doing anything against LBGTQ as they would eviscerated in the court of court of public opinion.

    ReplyReply
  55. 55
    Steeplejack says:

    Screw you, StackPath “content delivery network.” You’re really on the ball, making sure I get the latest and greatest. An hour after this post went up, it’s still not showing up on the “next post” wing of the previous post. Had to go to Cole’s Twitter feed to see if there was a new post.

    ReplyReply
  56. 56
    VeniceRiley says:

    Speaking as an actual gay, I’m beyond ready to marry my girlfriend and move to the UK. Dild0 Baggins notwithstanding, at least their courts are still somewhat sane.

    ReplyReply
  57. 57
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @cain: Sure, That May be true in NY, NY or Madison, WI, but what about Casper, Wyoming or Plano, TX? Rights are only rifghts if the are enforceable and enforced everywhere.

    ReplyReply
  58. 58
    Bill Arnold says:

    @catclub:

    I think there was an impulse to get it all over really fast when they released that transcript

    They. Did. Not. Release. A. Transcript.
    They released a “Memorandum” – the document itself says that it is not a verbatim transcript.

    ReplyReply
  59. 59
    Mike in DC says:

    @Betty Cracker: Well, the question of whether the votes are there for a formal vote on opening an impeachment inquiry appears to be resolved. I suppose there might still be nervous congress critters, but I expect the vote would uphold it if called. Inherent contempt is trickier, because it hasn’t been used in a long time. It might not withstand a SCOTUS challenge, or it might be less effective if they get into a standoff with other security personnel over effecting arrests. I suspect the Congress could fast track subpoena appeals to SCOTUS, though it’s also possible the administration could force it to drag out a bit. But generally they should be moving towards stronger measures. Just issuing subpoenas, talking vaguely about obstruction and saying “maybe we’ll take this to court” won’t get it done.

    ReplyReply
  60. 60
    Kay says:

    NEW: After State Dept. bars key witness from testifying in House probe, House Intel Chair Adam Schiff says, “We’re also aware the ambassador has text messages or emails on a personal device…and the State Department is withholding those messages as well.”

    That’s all they have to do, politically, and as many of you told me impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one :)

    “They’re liars, they’re lying again, and hiding things from the public”. Transparency polls really well. People love sunshine laws. That whole concept is popular. It doesn’t work in reverse- they won’t get political points for releasing their sleazy machinations (as we saw with the ‘transcript’) but it does work as an attack.

    ReplyReply
  61. 61
    jl says:

    If Giuliani testifies, need to televise it. Maybe have Laura Ingraham do the questioning. So he spills all the beans under oath. Make sure the rules allow him to show his smart phone screen to present evidence.

    ReplyReply
  62. 62
    Raoul says:

    @Betty:
    Am I the only one who thinks Rudy taking his Crackpot Dome road show to the Senate might not evolve to Trump’s benefit?”

    @KamalaHarris
    Good. I have questions.

    @LindseyGrahamSC
    Therefore I will offer to Mr. Giuliani the opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to inform the committee of his concerns. 3/3

    ReplyReply
  63. 63
    kindness says:

    Putin has to have some remarkable video footage of Lindsey Graham. Sure wish sleuths on our side could dig that from the Russian’s servers so that we could all be shocked at the video.

    ReplyReply
  64. 64
    sdhays says:

    @Bill Arnold: I found it pretty telling that the mainstream media couldn’t be bothered to even report that small, but important, detail correctly. Why should anyone believe anything they say when they’re so transparently lazy?

    ReplyReply
  65. 65
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @catclub:

    kudos to BC for the post title

    Betty is all kinds of brilliant, and I’m glad she’s using “Crackpot Dome,” but Karen Tumulty of the WaPo actually came up with it. We had a thread about scandal-naming a few nights ago, which featured her tweet:

    Karen Tumulty
    @ktumulty
    Replying to
    @gtconway3d
    Gates are over. Let’s return to the classics. The best name for a scandal built on insane conspiracy theories is Crackpot Dome.
    2:28 PM · Oct 4, 2019·

    ReplyReply
  66. 66
    Kay says:

    Here’s the Trump lackey’s hotels. We shouldn’t stay there if he won’t tell us what he did for Donald Trump in our name and using our funds. It’s disrespectful that he refuses to tell the public.

    ReplyReply
  67. 67
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: We don’t need another hero. We don’t need to know the way home. All we want is life beyond the Crackpot Dome.

    ReplyReply
  68. 68
    Kent says:

    @jl:

    If Giuliani testifies, need to televise it. Maybe have Laura Ingraham do the questioning. So he spills all the beans under oath. Make sure the rules allow him to show his smart phone screen to present evidence.

    YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

    It would be epic.

    ReplyReply
  69. 69

    @Cacti:

    The House can and should find that any failure to produce subpoenaed documents or witnesses is evidence that they would tend to prove guilt.

    There’s no guarantee the Senate will see things the same way, though. Also, and I suspect this is the real reason Trump and Co. are hiding them, is that there’s a real chance any documents will provide evidence of further wrongdoing that we don’t even know enough to suspect. Yes, we should threaten to treat obstruction as an additional charge and make an adverse inference, but they shouldn’t stop at that; they need to keep fighting to get the documents.

    ReplyReply
  70. 70
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Sister Golden Bear: Worse than that, likely a few of those justices are gay or bi and in the closet, so the openly LGT get judged by someone who is quite likely a hypocrite.

    ReplyReply
  71. 71
    NotMax says:

    Wasn’t Giuliani’s ‘work’ in that cache of folders the State Department (insistently) brought to the committee like a week ago? Maybe Rudy will pass around print outs from Conservapedia this time.

    “Pay no attention to the stack of stickers reading ‘White House’ that just fell out of my briefcase. Damn, packed those by mistake instead of the BOGO coupons for chocolate cake at His High and Mighty’s (hallowed be his name unto the last generation) hotel.”

    ReplyReply
  72. 72
    Kent says:

    Frankly the only reason why current administrations don’t prosecute and jail operatives from the previous administration is “norms”

    But we are so far off in unchartered water in terms of “norms” that any claims by former Trump administration lackeys in 2021 that “you can’t prosecute us now because…norms!” should just be laughed at.

    ReplyReply
  73. 73
    rikyrah says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    @SiubhanDuinne: We don’t need another hero. We don’t need to know the way home. All we want is life beyond the Crackpot Dome.

    BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH

    ReplyReply
  74. 74
    rikyrah says:

    @Kent:

    But we are so far off in unchartered water in terms of “norms” that any claims by former Trump administration lackeys in 2021 that “you can’t prosecute us now because…norms!” should just be laughed at.

    I know that’s right.

    ReplyReply
  75. 75
    Ruckus says:

    @catclub:
    This was one of the reasons that NP didn’t rush impeachment. The bastards will make a case against themselves, they can’t help it. Or themselves.

    ReplyReply
  76. 76
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @hells littlest angel: Presuming there isn’t a clause in his will that says “Should the remains of the Deceased be found after having been fed into a wood-chipper, the surviving Spouse gets bupkes.”

    You sneer, but wouldn’t that form of unseemly demise be a real possibility for anyone who’d been playing footsie with at least a couple of mobs long before he married her?

    ReplyReply
  77. 77
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @SFAW: At some point Trump is going to throw Barr under the bus if anything because Trump owes Barr and Trump always screws his debtors.

    ReplyReply
  78. 78
    NotMax says:

    @Kay

    But- but- Dolt 45 has stated his is the most transparent administration in all of history.

    Are you implying he might have spoken an untruth?

    ;)

    ReplyReply
  79. 79
    Ruckus says:

    @catclub:
    The people who believe him are racists and buffoons. They would believe him if he said his fat ass could fly. They are not going to change, don’t bother to try. This is something they have to learn themselves, and that has as much of a chance as me learning to fly. Lost causes are just that.

    ReplyReply
  80. 80

    @Kay:

    That whole concept is popular. It doesn’t work in reverse- they won’t get political points for releasing their sleazy machinations (as we saw with the ‘transcript’) but it does work as an attack.

    Of course it doesn’t work in reverse. People see transparency as a basic principle of Democratic government. You don’t get bonus points for following sunshine laws any more than you get bonus points for holding elections on schedule; people correctly see that as the basic requirement of proper behavior.

    People don’t even get bonus points for being more open than they’re required to be. Take a look at the Clintons! The Clinton Foundation is a model of transparency, releasing far more information than it’s legally required to. Instead of getting bonus points for being open, they got slagged by people who trolled through their records looking for anything that could be twisted into evidence against them.

    ReplyReply
  81. 81
    Jay C says:

    I’m sure that Lindsay Graham is anxious to get ol’ Rudy! up in front of the Senate Committee – but only as part of a carefully stage-managed “presentation” – not to the Senate; but to the public.

    I’m sure Giuliani’s “testimony” is going to be the usual farrago of lies, partisan BS and conspiracy-theory woo-woo: the big thing is going to be how he presents it. If he comes across as sober, respectable and measured, it’s likely his comments/opinions are going to be widely (and probably immediately) disseminated as utter and complete “exoneration” of anything Trump has done, is doing, or might do.

    Of course, there’s always the possibility Rudy will forget he’s not on Fox And Friends, and launch into a raving, spittle-flecked diatribe: but who knows? This whole thing just reeks of set-up…

    ReplyReply
  82. 82
    Martin says:

    @Kent: Not sure there will be an Atty General Harris. I mean, Obama offered her the job and she turned it down.

    ReplyReply
  83. 83
    rp says:

    Minor scandals are named after prior scandals. e.g., Travelgate. Major scandals have their own names that are then copied: Teapot Dome, Watergate. Trump definitely falls into the latter category. This will simply be called the Trump scandal.

    ReplyReply
  84. 84
    NotMax says:

    @rp

    Don T’s Inferno.

    ReplyReply
  85. 85
    frosty says:

    @rp:

    the Trump scandal

    …scandal(s)
    FTFY

    ReplyReply
  86. 86
    Kent says:

    @Martin:

    @Kent: Not sure there will be an Atty General Harris. I mean, Obama offered her the job and she turned it down.

    Fine, Attorney General Xavier Becerra then.

    We have plenty of good candidates who can do the job of purging the stench.

    ReplyReply
  87. 87
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Jay C: Maybe, but here’s the thing: a crackpot conspiracy theory is the root of all of this. It’s not a side dish; it is the entire enchilada. I can tell you Santa Claus hitched his reindeer to my Jeep and flew away, and I could tell you that in a sober, respectable and measured tone, but I’d still come across as a crazy liar because my story would be, well, a crazy lie.

    ReplyReply
  88. 88
    NotMax says:

    @Kent

    Attorney General Garland?

    ReplyReply
  89. 89
    NotMax says:

    @Betty Cracker

    Santa Claus hitched his reindeer to my Jeep and flew away

    “Hello, Prudential?”

    :)

    ReplyReply
  90. 90
    JPL says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Would it make it easier to defend religious liberty laws if they said the LGBT community didn’t need special consideration.

    ReplyReply
  91. 91
    SFAW says:

    @NotMax:

    Attorney General Garland?

    I was kinda hoping for Associate Justice Garland, after Rapey McRapeface gets impeached.

    ReplyReply
  92. 92
    JPL says:

    @Betty Cracker: Actually it would depend on what the NYTimes said.

    ReplyReply
  93. 93
    mrmoshpotato says:

    And who could forget Bob Keeshan’s ping pong balls of bogus charges!

    Matt Gaetz: "What we see in this impeachment is a kangaroo court and Chairman Schiff is acting like a malicious Captain Kangaroo." pic.twitter.com/QQPaj8sR0p— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 8, 2019

    Oh Floriduh!

    ReplyReply
  94. 94
    Ixnay says:

    Don T’s Inferno is just awesome.

    ReplyReply
  95. 95
    NotMax says:

    @mrmoshpotato

    Louis Gohmert must have quite the sad over all the rabid competition for his title.

    ReplyReply
  96. 96
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @SFAW: How dare you slander the service of a submersible ROV with such an association.

    I’d bet my life that Boaty McBoatface isn’t a blackout drunk college rapist.

    ReplyReply
  97. 97
    Kay says:

    Jon Favreau
    @jonfavs
    · 52m
    I’m no pollster, but I’d bet the healthy majority of Americans who already favor the impeachment inquiry won’t look too kindly on Donald Trump hiding potentially incriminating texts, emails, and witnesses from Congress and the public.

    Yup. It’s an easy argument to make and they’re already primed for it. Democrats just have to speak with one voice and repeat it a lot. Obstruction, hiding, lying, why? Why won’t they come clean if they are proud of their work?

    ReplyReply
  98. 98

    @Aleta: Because there’s been such “massive social upheaval” in the 21+ states have these laws now, including his beloved Colorado, where he was law professor. I think he’ll side with conservatives and say with furrowed brow that he feels real sad about it.

    Round up of hearing commentary here.

    @cain: In the states that don’t have state-level protections, businesses can and do discriminate against LGBTQ customers and employees with the wholehearted support of the community. Put it this way, a while back a friend of mine from a rural area of Ohio visited SF and one of the things that struck her most where people casually smoking outside a gay bar — because at home one wouldn’t dare do that at the single gay bar for miles around.

    @VeniceRiley: I hear you, I hear you. Unfortunately for me TERFs — faux radical feminists who are aligned with fundamentalists in their belief that trans women aren’t women — are rather prominent in public discourse there, so I’m looking at Portugal myself (despite having to learn a new language not).

    ReplyReply
  99. 99
    NotMax says:

    Reply fix.

    @mrmoshpotato

    Louis Gohmert must have quite the sad over all the rabid competition for his title.

    ReplyReply
  100. 100
    Cameron says:

    @rp: The Trumpster Fire?

    ReplyReply
  101. 101
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @cain:

    While SCOTUS might stop gay rights – society have already decided that gay rights is important, SCOTUS will be completely out of touch with what society feels about this and that means that businesses are going to have to a hard time doing anything against LBGTQ as they would eviscerated in the court of court of public opinion.

    SCOTUS is typically two generations behind mainstream society. Big companies are going to keep treating LGBTQ people well because they aren’t stupid, and some aren’t evil. Even companies run by loathsome religious fanatics (such as Chick-Fil-A and Honeybaked Ham, to name two of the Atlanta-based ones) don’t mistreat their customers. Local bigot Tammy Sue the Baker might, but I would think that such discrimination will be rare even if made legal (again).

    ETA: for a counterpoint, see my distinguished colleague Omnes Omnibus @57.

    ReplyReply
  102. 102
    rp says:

    @frosty: I like the singular because everything is connected. They’re all different pieces of the same puzzle.

    ReplyReply
  103. 103
    Emerald says:

    @Kent:

    Attorney General Harris

    Actually it will be President Harris’s Attorney General, Preet Bharara

    ReplyReply
  104. 104
    Betty Cracker says:

    @JPL: Here’s hoping The Times is still punching itself in the face for fumbling a Watergate-level scoop because Ken Vogel was trying to spin Rudy’s madcap international adventure into a Biden hit piece. If you read between the lines in their coverage, it seems like they get that, although they’ll deny it until the sun is a burnt out cinder.

    ReplyReply
  105. 105
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @NotMax: You don’t a Circuit Court gig to be AG.

    ReplyReply
  106. 106
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @NotMax: Possibly. It’s also entirely possible Louis is too stupid to understand the idiocy of what Gaetz said.

    ReplyReply
  107. 107
    Kent says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    @NotMax: You don’t [quit] a Circuit Court gig to be AG.

    Right. And Merrit Garland was an aging centrist. He would be entirely un noteworthy had it not been for McConnell. And Obama would not have picked him as an olive branch nominee if he had been a younger liberal.

    I’m sure he is a fine guy. But I doubt he is the sort of relentless pit bull we are going to need to root out the corruption and stench. We are going to need a professional prosecutor who knows how to be relentless. A young Democratic Mueller type who puts up with no bullshit.

    ReplyReply
  108. 108
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Here’s hoping The Times is still punching itself in the face for fumbling a Watergate-level scoop

    They’ll just let Maureen Dowd console them with a Why-doesn’t-Killary-go-away op-ed.

    ReplyReply
  109. 109
    JPL says:

    @Steve in the ATL: Honey Baked Ham? Tell me it’s not so. I have out of town guests arriving Thursday and plan on having Honey Baked Ham Thursday evening. We have the gluten free, dairy free folks visiting so I thought I’d make it easier on me. UGH

    ReplyReply
  110. 110
    mrmoshpotato says:

    Wonkette commenter informs their gentle readers that it’s World Octopus Day

    ReplyReply
  111. 111
    joel hanes says:

    More attention should be paid to Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty.
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/870300/trump-apparently-wants-pull-from-open-skies-treaty-nobody-knows-why
    This is a move that has only one beneficiary: Russia.

    ReplyReply
  112. 112
    Gin & Tonic says:

    I look at comments 109 and 110 in succession, and am thinking of a business opportunity. Octopuses (come at me, Steve!) are gluten free and dairy free too, so how about an LGBTQ-friendly Honey Baked Octopus Company?

    Call me abou franchise opportunities in major metro markets.

    ReplyReply
  113. 113
    NotMax says:

    @mrmoshpotato

    Also both National Fluffernutter Day and National Pierogi Day!

    ReplyReply
  114. 114
    NotMax says:

    @Gin & Tonic

    There was an attempt here a while back to start a franchise based on serving octopus tacos, called Tako Taco.

    The couple of outlets they did open didn’t last long.

    ReplyReply
  115. 115
    Gravenstone says:

    @NotMax: As enticing as that thought might be, you can be certain there would be absolute howls of recuse! any time a Republican came before DOJ scrutiny because of what McConnell did to his SC nomination. And of course the compliant media would nod approvingly.

    ReplyReply
  116. 116
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Gin & Tonic: It’s not World Eat An Octopus Day!

    It’s more like ‘Make fluffernutter pierogies for your octopus day’*

    * Don’t do that. Just don’t.

    ReplyReply
  117. 117
    Gravenstone says:

    @mrmoshpotato: Hrm, aren’t there explicit norms about not publicly criticizing or belittling other members of the House (and Senate). Maybe Speaker Pelosi should show young Mr. Gaetz where the woodshed is?

    ReplyReply
  118. 118
    joel hanes says:

    @kindness:

    Putin has to have some remarkable video footage of Lindsey Graham.

    My guess is that what Putin has on many Republicans is the contents of certain of emails that they had presumed confidential that the Russians hacked out of the RNC servers.

    It’s my further guess that the eight fool Republicans who celebrated the Fourth of July in Moscow were informed, individually, by one of Putin’s underlings, exactly what Russia wants from them, and what will happen if they stand in the way.

    ReplyReply
  119. 119

    @JPL:
    It’s probably too late, but I would strongly recommend Father’s Country Hams. They make a traditional country ham that’s salted and smoked to the point that it can be kept without refrigeration. Their bacon is also fantastic, at least if you like a very smoky bacon.

    ReplyReply
  120. 120
    frosty says:

    @joel hanes: If we need Senate ratification to get into a treaty why don’t we need it to get out. How can the executive branch withdraw the US by itself?

    ReplyReply
  121. 121
    catclub says:

    @Kent:

    But I doubt he is the sort of relentless pit bull we are going to need to root out the corruption and stench.

    This also takes the lawyers under him being relentless pitbulls. Which is hard in Federal Service with a revolving door requiring not overprosecuting your potential employers. See the Chickenshit book on prosecuting the big bankers.

    I am sure congress will be willing to raise the pay and prestige of those DOJ lawyers right after they finish raising the pay and prestige of the IRS auditors that go after the wealthy.

    ReplyReply
  122. 122
    joel hanes says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Nueske’s smoked meats are superb.
    Wisconsin. They ship.

    ReplyReply
  123. 123
    joel hanes says:

    @frosty:

    How can the executive branch withdraw the US by itself?

    Two answers:
    1. Have you noticed which party controls the Senate?
    2. Trump operates on two principles:
    – he can do anything we can’t stop him from doing
    – there’s nothing that we can stop him from doing

    ReplyReply
  124. 124
    Gravenstone says:

    @joel hanes: Are you formerly of WI? I’ve seen you shill for Miesfelds a few times too (which I pass by twice daily on my commute).

    ReplyReply
  125. 125
    catclub says:

    @joel hanes: and yet, whenever his lawyers demand an emergency stay in his favor, to keep his taxes hidden,
    the courts grant it.

    Some are protected by the law, but not bound by it.

    ReplyReply
  126. 126
    joel hanes says:

    @mrmoshpotato:

    I’ve quit eating octopus.
    I’ve concluded that many octopodes are smarter than many Republican officeholders.

    ReplyReply
  127. 127
    NotMax says:

    @frosty

    The text of some approved treaties includes procedures for exiting the treaty.

    ReplyReply
  128. 128
    NotMax says:

    @catclub

    Lawfolk please correct me if I’m off base, but imposing a stay is SOP while an appeal is filed.

    ReplyReply
  129. 129
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Gravenstone: I don’t know, but if there are, Gaetz is definitely too stupid to know.

    ReplyReply
  130. 130
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Octopuses (come at me, Steve!)

    Using “octopi” as the plural of “octopus” is akin to saying “I feel well” rather than saying the correct idiom “I feel good”.

    “Octopus” has Greek roots, not Latin, ergo “octopuses” is correct and “octopi” is wrong.

    This will be covered in greater detail later in the semester; please check your syllabi.

    ReplyReply
  131. 131
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Roger Moore:

    They make a traditional country ham that’s salted and smoked to the point that it can be kept without refrigeration.

    Sounds very salty and smokey.

    ReplyReply
  132. 132
    joel hanes says:

    @Gravenstone:

    I’m from and currently in northern Iowa.
    I love Wisconsin.
    Aldo Leopold’s family were a business acquaintances of my great-grandfather and grandfather; the Leopolds used to stay in our lakeside cottage in Iowa for the pheasant hunting, and left us a first-run copy of Sand County Almanac when it was published in 1949. My folks visited the Leopold shack and met Estelle and Luna.
    A beloved aunt lived first in Sheboygan, then in Madison, then in Baraboo, and then in Adams
    Best friend from high school lived in Sheboygan for five years, and I spent time with him.
    Had Army friends in/from Madison.
    Used to buy sailboats from Melges down in Zenda.
    Have often vacationed on the Chippewa Flowage up by Hayward, and have canoed the Flambeau.
    Used to do fall camping trips to Wyalusing.
    My parents were members of the International Crane Foundation, and I’ve been to the place in Baraboo.

    ReplyReply
  133. 133
    NotMax says:

    @Steve in the ATL

    And “television” is simply an abomination.

    Must remember to check out the “Get Good” section of the greeting card aisle.

    :)

    ReplyReply
  134. 134
    joel hanes says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    “I feel well” rather than saying the correct idiom “I feel good”.

    These are both correct, but mean different things.

    ReplyReply
  135. 135
    catclub says:

    @Steve in the ATLNo irrelevant points, make sure all your arguments are octopical.
    Making eight simultaneous arguments would be tentacular.

    ReplyReply
  136. 136
    J R in WV says:

    @Mike in DC:

    Inherent contempt is trickier, because it hasn’t been used in a long time. It might not withstand a SCOTUS challenge, or it might be less effective if they get into a standoff with other security personnel over effecting arrests.

    I don’t think the Supreme Court has much sway in an Impeachment situation, IANAL but that’s my stand.

    ReplyReply
  137. 137

    @Steve in the ATL:

    “Octopus” has Greek roots, not Latin, ergo “octopuses” is correct and “octopi” is wrong.

    I thought it was supposed to be octopodes.

    ReplyReply
  138. 138
    Sab says:

    Jeezus phuck. I just called Rob Portman’s DC office. I am always mild-mannered. An actual person answered. I sighed, because I was actually speechlessly surprised. Then I said I know a lot of Ukrainian Americans because there are a lot of them in NE Ohio, and they and I am shocked. I know that Sen. Portman has stuck up for them, but he needs to do more. This president is off the rails.

    Then I said, which is very true, I know and have known a lot of young soldiers and their families. What are they fighting and being injured and dying for. This president has no respect for agreements or treaty obligations. What do we stand for.

    Then I said I come from a family of lifelong Republicans (which I do) and I don’t understand where Portman is coming from.

    Kid actually listened and rseponded and didn’t hang up. We are getting through to them.

    Re: my family of lifelong Republicans: I have been a Democrat since 1970, and my mother died as an independant. Also my RWNJ brother in local government in CA bailed from the party.

    I also had a Republican great great whatever uncle die in the Civil War as a Republican. I don’t know if he was drafted, but his family did buy into not only Unionist but also abolitionist positions.

    ReplyReply
  139. 139
    artem1s says:

    @Kay: Every Dump voter I know, every W voter I know, has issues with admitting they have terrible judgement. bad judgement when it comes to voting. bad judgement when it comes to deciding policy. bad judgement when it comes to making money decisions. they almost all want permission to discriminate based on how they FEEL about stuff. Not facts. They won’t change either. Right now they are searching for any excuse to latch on to Dump in 2020 – even if it’s a redux of Killary’s Benghazi Emails. Never mind that there is no Clinton in this race. If Dump’s not around to vote for next time, they will look for an excuse to double down on their poor judgement with someone worse.

    ReplyReply
  140. 140
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Roger Moore: Octopoodles?

    ReplyReply
  141. 141
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Roger Moore: Typical for B-J. I offer the business opportunity of a lifetime, and you losers get into an argument about etymology.

    ReplyReply
  142. 142
    Sab says:

    Jeezus phuck. I just called Rob Portman’s DC office. I am always mild-mannered. An actual person answered. I sighed, because I was actually speechlessly surprised. Then I said I know a lot of Ukrainian Americans because there are a lot of them in NE Ohio, and they and I am shocked. I know that Sen. Portman has stuck up for them, but he needs to do more. This president is off the rails.Then I said what about Kurds who we promised to back up. He sighed and agrred.

    Then I said, which is very true, I know and have known a lot of young soldiers and their families. What are they fighting and being injured and dying for. This president has no respect for agreements or treaty obligations. What do we stand for.

    Then I said I come from a family of lifelong Republicans (which I do) and I don’t understand where Portman is coming from.

    Kid actually listened and reseponded and didn’t hang up. We are getting through to them.

    Re: my family of lifelong Republicans: I have been a Democrat since 1970, and my mother died as an independant. Also my RWNJ brother in local government in CA bailed from the party.

    I also had a Republican great great whatever uncle die in the Civil War as a Republican. I don’t know if he was drafted, but his family did buy into not only Unionist but also abolitionist positions.

    ReplyReply
  143. 143
    Yutsano says:

    @Roger Moore: You can pry my octopi from my cold, dead, tentacles.

    @joel hanes: One of the things that struck me about Wisconsin: their rest areas. That’s almost like how they are in Germany: fully enclosed buildings with nice interiors. Man those put Washington’s to shame.

    Also: will be in Milwaukee from 10/31 to 11/4. I MIGHT be able to squeeze in a meet-up if anyone has interest.

    ReplyReply
  144. 144
    jl says:

    @Gin & Tonic: I for one am interested in the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the surely stupendously successful Honey Baked Octopus company. I am considering applying for a franchise and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    ReplyReply
  145. 145
    jl says:

    @Sab: ” Also my RWNJ brother in local government in CA bailed from the party. ”

    My experience too. Last few years have been a watershed period for all the half-way normal people in my family. The oldster family stories say it was one hundred percent Republican, then the Great Depression came along and almost all them went to Democrats. All the thoughtful people in my family who were Republican have thrown in the towel and left the party. First GW, now Trump, and Congressional GOPers getting ever more outrageous, they peeled off the Democrats or independent status. Say they won’t vote for Republicans any more.

    ReplyReply
  146. 146
    NotMax says:

    @jl

    Spiral sliced, of course.

    “Every table deserves an Easter Octo.”

    ReplyReply
  147. 147
    Ruckus says:

    @NotMax:
    Judy?

    ReplyReply
  148. 148
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @NotMax: My favorite dish at Mexico Lindo in Melrose, Mass. was a fish dish that came with octopus salsa. Allegedly Veracruz style though I wouldn’t know.

    ReplyReply
  149. 149
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Steve in the ATL: Big companies that have to deal with the government would become officially homophobic in the blink of an eye if they thought it was necessary to get a contract. These things can turn around so fast– remember what happened with Hollywood and security culture in the wake of 9/11, or media companies dealing with the Chinese government. Prevailing cultural standards would mean nothing, or change in response.

    ReplyReply
  150. 150
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @NotMax: Still talking about octopus. Looks like I created a monster.

    So – Tentacles

    Now back to Tucker and Dale vs Evil.

    ReplyReply
  151. 151
    NotMax says:

    @mrmoshpotato

    Cute little send-up film.

    ReplyReply
  152. 152
    Denali says:

    Country hams are very salty. Just saying.

    ReplyReply
  153. 153
    NotMax says:

    @Denali

    Smithfields. Salt licks with ham flavoring.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *