And today, the NYT gave Rich Lowry prime real estate to tell us all that this whole indictment thing must go away via a nonsensical John Kerry hypothetical, and the lie - now a classic! - that the Russia investigation uncovered nothing. He avoids telling us what the upside of the indictments going away would be, besides making Trump & the GOP happy, because why bother; just leave us alone, Democrats, because we said so.
It’s staggering the NYT would supplement the reach of a man *with his own publication* to make such a non-argument, but they did.
OK I stand corrected when I wrote earlier that Andrew McCarthy is "tolerable." Here, he is emphatically intolerable! Thanks for the revealing homework, Ken. Sounds like McCarthy and National Review are looking for a constituency.
While the Henry V reference in the first piece on this topic was as far over my head as the English arrows over Agincourt, I AM HERE FOR THE LEBOWSKI REFERENCE.
You're not the only lawyer or legal pundit whom God built that way.
Mr. McCarthy has a sad history of missing something, having it pointed out to him, and then doubling down without admitting error. He engaged in a multi-month rant against Rod Rosenstein on the genuinely stupid assumption that since Mueller's original appointment didn't include jurisdiction over all the matters on which Paul Manafort was charged, Mueller was running a lawless, outlaw special counsel's office. I emailed him repeatedly to point out that while 28 CFR § 600.9 obliges the AG to notify the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees when a special counsel is appointed or removed, or overridden by the AG, there's no requirement at all that supplemental notice be given when the AG enters an order pursuant to 28 CFR § 600.4(b) determining to include additional matters within the special counsel's jurisdiction. I also left comments to this effect on his columns at NR.
"Aha!" sez Andy when Manafort makes a motion to dismiss based on Mueller's supposed lack of jurisdiction. "Aha yourself," sez Mueller when he attaches the supplemental order that Rod Rosenstein had signed months and months before (but hadn't notified Congress about because the reg doesn't require that kind of notice). Did we hear, "Mea culpa maxima, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein and special counsel Mueller, I've been falsely accusing you for months?" No, McCarthy published an incoherent, mouth-frothing column insisting that this all just proved (somehow) he'd been right all along.
It was an exercise of spectacular intellectual dishonesty compounding a stupid mistake. I can't respect Andy McCarthy's opinion on ANYTHING having to do with Donald Trump after that.
1. Ken, I am concerned about your blood pressure (one 54 year old man to another) - because you are a treasure.
2. Its past time to let go of the expectation of careful, honest commentary from many people and institutions we previously thought were principled actors. Its more sad and pathetic than vexing.
since last week i essentially said you were too generous about the possibility of good faith from the national review it's only fair to say that this week i can no longer say that.
to be sure, it's a bad thing that the national review is a bad faith enterprise, but it's a good thing you're about there in acknowledging.
Hammerschmidt seems to be disturbingly broad and I doubt that the Supreme Court would interpret it as broadly today (and so long as the Petitioner’s name wasn’t Trump, I would expect it to be Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor and two others leading the narrowing charge). But that’s an argument that only works at the Supreme Court. Do courts sometimes ignore Rodriguez De Quijas if the question is close and the recent precedent really really really calls into doubt the old precedent? Yes. But do it think this is close enough? Yeah, no.
That McCarthy and the Review have chosen this course just confirms the degree to which Trump and his cult have poisoned the discourse, by pushing someone who- agree with him or not- knows better, to come out and underhandedly advocate for a position he damned well knows doesn't hold legal water.
WTF happened to Alan Dershowitz? CNN needs to do a deep dive on him as they did on Giuliani (Giuliani: What Happened to America's Mayor? https://www.cnn.com/videos/title-2418941). The only thing I can see is he hates the government because all he's ever been is a defense atty and highly suspicious of the representatives of The People. Has never been a prosecutor, never had to prove a case, only had to cut it down to get reasonable doubt. All the legal eagles I follow, like Ken, have worked both sides. All lawyers are trained to work both sides. He had to do that to pass the MA Bar, but that was very long ago. Maybe he's losing cognitive capacity.
This has been McCarthy’s MO for the past 8 years - concocting legal mumbo-jumbo and claiming how Trump is being unfairly prosecuted (or why a specific Dem SHOULD be prosecuted).
He’s a hack, and he’s NR’s “legal shield” for their hackery.
Re: Morosco’s snarky tone: That’s Judge Thompson’s writing style. I knew who wrote the opinion before I got more than two sentences into it. She literally always sounds like that. (Very derisive to the client).
How to build credibility: Years of covering Trump antics, calling out both liberal and conservative wish casting. That is way I listen to Serious Trouble:).
I don't take the National Review seriously. Rothman is the only writer there that I know of who has some credibility. Lowry and McCarthy are clearly totally partisan and are wholly untrustworthy.
And today, the NYT gave Rich Lowry prime real estate to tell us all that this whole indictment thing must go away via a nonsensical John Kerry hypothetical, and the lie - now a classic! - that the Russia investigation uncovered nothing. He avoids telling us what the upside of the indictments going away would be, besides making Trump & the GOP happy, because why bother; just leave us alone, Democrats, because we said so.
It’s staggering the NYT would supplement the reach of a man *with his own publication* to make such a non-argument, but they did.
OK I stand corrected when I wrote earlier that Andrew McCarthy is "tolerable." Here, he is emphatically intolerable! Thanks for the revealing homework, Ken. Sounds like McCarthy and National Review are looking for a constituency.
"Plus, he’s very pro- the National Review being kept alive and relevant."
I'd wish him luck, but my insincerity would be showing.
While the Henry V reference in the first piece on this topic was as far over my head as the English arrows over Agincourt, I AM HERE FOR THE LEBOWSKI REFERENCE.
You're not the only lawyer or legal pundit whom God built that way.
Mr. McCarthy has a sad history of missing something, having it pointed out to him, and then doubling down without admitting error. He engaged in a multi-month rant against Rod Rosenstein on the genuinely stupid assumption that since Mueller's original appointment didn't include jurisdiction over all the matters on which Paul Manafort was charged, Mueller was running a lawless, outlaw special counsel's office. I emailed him repeatedly to point out that while 28 CFR § 600.9 obliges the AG to notify the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees when a special counsel is appointed or removed, or overridden by the AG, there's no requirement at all that supplemental notice be given when the AG enters an order pursuant to 28 CFR § 600.4(b) determining to include additional matters within the special counsel's jurisdiction. I also left comments to this effect on his columns at NR.
"Aha!" sez Andy when Manafort makes a motion to dismiss based on Mueller's supposed lack of jurisdiction. "Aha yourself," sez Mueller when he attaches the supplemental order that Rod Rosenstein had signed months and months before (but hadn't notified Congress about because the reg doesn't require that kind of notice). Did we hear, "Mea culpa maxima, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein and special counsel Mueller, I've been falsely accusing you for months?" No, McCarthy published an incoherent, mouth-frothing column insisting that this all just proved (somehow) he'd been right all along.
It was an exercise of spectacular intellectual dishonesty compounding a stupid mistake. I can't respect Andy McCarthy's opinion on ANYTHING having to do with Donald Trump after that.
1. Ken, I am concerned about your blood pressure (one 54 year old man to another) - because you are a treasure.
2. Its past time to let go of the expectation of careful, honest commentary from many people and institutions we previously thought were principled actors. Its more sad and pathetic than vexing.
since last week i essentially said you were too generous about the possibility of good faith from the national review it's only fair to say that this week i can no longer say that.
to be sure, it's a bad thing that the national review is a bad faith enterprise, but it's a good thing you're about there in acknowledging.
Hammerschmidt seems to be disturbingly broad and I doubt that the Supreme Court would interpret it as broadly today (and so long as the Petitioner’s name wasn’t Trump, I would expect it to be Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor and two others leading the narrowing charge). But that’s an argument that only works at the Supreme Court. Do courts sometimes ignore Rodriguez De Quijas if the question is close and the recent precedent really really really calls into doubt the old precedent? Yes. But do it think this is close enough? Yeah, no.
That McCarthy and the Review have chosen this course just confirms the degree to which Trump and his cult have poisoned the discourse, by pushing someone who- agree with him or not- knows better, to come out and underhandedly advocate for a position he damned well knows doesn't hold legal water.
WTF happened to Alan Dershowitz? CNN needs to do a deep dive on him as they did on Giuliani (Giuliani: What Happened to America's Mayor? https://www.cnn.com/videos/title-2418941). The only thing I can see is he hates the government because all he's ever been is a defense atty and highly suspicious of the representatives of The People. Has never been a prosecutor, never had to prove a case, only had to cut it down to get reasonable doubt. All the legal eagles I follow, like Ken, have worked both sides. All lawyers are trained to work both sides. He had to do that to pass the MA Bar, but that was very long ago. Maybe he's losing cognitive capacity.
How old is he? 84. He's older than Biden!!!
This has been McCarthy’s MO for the past 8 years - concocting legal mumbo-jumbo and claiming how Trump is being unfairly prosecuted (or why a specific Dem SHOULD be prosecuted).
He’s a hack, and he’s NR’s “legal shield” for their hackery.
Re: Morosco’s snarky tone: That’s Judge Thompson’s writing style. I knew who wrote the opinion before I got more than two sentences into it. She literally always sounds like that. (Very derisive to the client).
"He’s not pro-Trump. But he’s anti-anti-Trump."
Yep, that's it. Better to let the country go down in flames than to ever admit the Democrats might have a point.
How to build credibility: Years of covering Trump antics, calling out both liberal and conservative wish casting. That is way I listen to Serious Trouble:).
Thanks for being you.
I don't take the National Review seriously. Rothman is the only writer there that I know of who has some credibility. Lowry and McCarthy are clearly totally partisan and are wholly untrustworthy.