He’s doing it all from the podium, right now as we speak. Its horrifying.
He’s actually been doing some work. First the speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, now his impeachment speech. It just goes to show how much of the time he’s tweeting instead of working.
You’re right.
We got a “sir” story, though it didn’t include grown men crying in gratitude. He accused Mitt Romney of never before mentioning religion in his life and just using it as a crutch to vote against him. He doesn’t seem to have any overarching point, just rambling about mean, evil socialists and fine, upstanding toadies.
And now Mother Nature took out my satellite feed, so he has been silenced.
Who is in the sycophantic audience that he’s cheerleading to?
He’s been babbling for 30 minutes and shows no signs of wrapping up.
Signal’s back. Why I care, I’m not exactly sure. My drunk uncle tells more coherent stories than this idiot. Something about record- breaking blood loss (why is everything record- breaking?!), baseball, and wives who are glad when their husbands die. I missed the beginning of the story. It probably wouldn’t have helped to see it, though.
I thought this was interesting. The phrase “religion as a crutch” is generally understood to mean the atheistic view that religion is for people too weak to face reality. (And this probably is an accurate description of Trump’s own views on the subject.) Trump pulled the phrase out of the dim recesses of memory – and totally misapplied it to Romney’s decision. He was probably shooting for “religion as an excuse/rationalization”, but vocabulary is not his strong suit.
Hey, don’t drag Melania into this!
My letter, sent today, to my own Republican senator:
*Dear Sen. Portman:
I was deeply disappointed – but not, I have to say, terribly surprised – by your vote to acquit President Trump at the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial. It was clear from the evidence presented that the President withheld security aid to an allied country in order to pressure that country into announcing an investigation of one of his political foes. It is also clear that the President has persistently and flagrantly obstructed Congress in the exercise of its constitutional oversight duties.
Too many Republicans yet again excused or explained away conduct that they would never have tolerated in a President of another party. You could have shown some courage, some commitment to the rule of law, some slight sense of fidelity to your oath of office. But no – you acted instead like a craven politician.
For shame, Senator. History will condemn you for your vote, as I do.
*
I just fired off a similar email, EH. But my senator is Mitch McConnell, so I don’t expect it to have any effect.
Psst. Her name is “Melanie”. 
I won’t attempt to rank the courageousness of what Romney did, but it seems to me that as long as Trump is president, Mitt Romney might as well not even show up for work. And not just because Trump will shun him. Any Republican that even hints at supporting or working with Mitt will be anathema to Trump. So it took no small amount of courage.
I keep getting fundraising emails, saying that McConnell’s opponent in the Senate race is within 1% point.
I fervently wish and hope that’s true, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
You should donate to his opponent.
First, secrecy is a plus, to an extent. I think Publius praised the unitary executive’s capacity for secrecy in Federalist 70.
I wouldn’t say that the executive branch can never contradict the president. The President, despite what he may want at any given instant, is bound by his own regulations, even if that means he has to cooperate with an independent counsel investigation into his own conduct. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988).
He is also bound by the law, according to the interpretations of the courts, or if no such interpretation is available, according to his own opinions. Congress has a say in this check, as they make the laws.
The President also needs Congress to approve the budget, and he needs the Senate to confirm judges, officers, and treaties.
I do not consider impeachment and removal to be part of the standard toolkit when it comes to inter-branch conflict. You have to meet some sort of standard that is higher than incompetence or maladministration, for example abuse of power or high crimes or high misdemeanors.
~Max
You just got done defending a President’s ability to dispense with all that and run a secret foreign policy unknown to Congress.
Oh hell, he is just looking good to run after Trump is out of office.
“Get those tables out of the way, slaves!”
How is congress supposed to do that if the President is allowed to block anyone from talking to Congress and withhold documents that they might ask for in order to confirm that he’s following the law?
I think you started a whole thread about how Trump is “allowed” to send Rudy G to conduct foreign policy, and therefore Congress was not justified in any investigation stemming from concerns over there. Fine. Is that, in your opinion, some narrow example of Executive power over which Congress has no oversight?
It seems to me that once Congress gets wind that Trump and Rudy’s foreign policy might include illegal use of congressionally allocated funds, per your statement above Congress has a right to “check” that he’s following the law. How are they supposed to do that?
Investigations? Witnesses? Documents? Are they limited to FOIA requests and insider leaks?
Or to this PAC: https://ditchmitchfund.com/
It doesn’t “demolish the premises” of arguments I posted here. There is ambiguity as to the nature of the “specific request”. Mr. Trump denies having directed Mr. Giuliani. It still isn’t testimony under oath. Even if it was about Biden or Crowdstrike, even if Mr. Trump directed Giuliani, it’s not even clear that makes for an impeachable offenese.
~Max
Its all so very complicated, isn’t it? Goodness, how can we be really sure of anything?