This is MJW's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following MJW's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
MJW
Recent Activity
Does anyone still think losing control of the House in 2018 hurt Trump and the MAGA movement? Oh, of course not! Too bad they couldn't manage to lose the Senate too. What a grand victory that would have been!
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Saturday Morning at JustOneMinute
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment merely re-iterates what Article 1 says, omitting the no-longer-relevant 3/5-ths phrase.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2019 on How About That World Cup? at JustOneMinute
... a case to me made ...
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2019 on How About That World Cup? at JustOneMinute
Yes, the courts have used the 14th amendment to make it based on persons. Not really the courts. It's what the Constitution says: Article I, section 2, clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. I do think there's and case to be made that people in the country illegally shouldn't count, just as foreign visitors shouldn't count, but that's an argument against the literal words of the Constitution.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2019 on How About That World Cup? at JustOneMinute
The most aggravating news of the day is that the government has apparently thrown in the towel in the census case, and will print the census form without the citizenship question. I hope they reconsider.
Toggle Commented Jul 2, 2019 on Dow Poised To, Well, Pounce. at JustOneMinute
Now you are just quibbling. Nunes revealed the redacted part of the scope memo dealt with the Steele dossier. The scope memo itself specified to Mueller what he was tasked to investigate. You are just refusing to put two and two together because you don't want to admit I have a valid point. Nunes said, “And remember, I had these concerns that it was based upon the Steele dossier.” No one who speaks English could reasonably interpret that to mean Mueller was investigating the Steele dossier. If Mueller were investigating the dossier, rather than basing his investigation on it, why would Nunes be concerned? He'd be pleased. Putting two and two together? I sometimes wonder if you even believe what you say.
JiB: At one time I subscribed to both The Economist and Scientific America and watched over the years how they devolved into progressive B.S. with a wrinkle of efficacy. There's a mistaken belief that Scientific America's descent into liberal propaganda is recent. However, I clearly remember back in the 80s when they regularly printed articles proving with scientific precision that Ronald Reagan's defense policies would lead to nuclear annihilation.
Keep in mind there are 12 redacted criminal referrals we still don't know any of the details on. My bet is Durham had plenty of evidence already on hand provided by Mueller for him to act on. My bet is, most if not all of the referrals relate to matters discussed under Ongoing Matter redactions. As I mentioned previously, I carefully went through the report, and determined that all of those redactions refer to people related to the Russians, Trump, or Wikileaks.
It clearly says in black and white that the scope memo tasked Mueller with investigating Manafort, Flynn and Papadoplous. I thought it was fairly obvious that the "(plant?)" parentheticals were my own addition. It was obvious the parentheticals were your own additions; I didn't suggest otherwise. But without them, nothing about the fact Mueller was tasked to investigate Manafort, Flynn, Page, and Papadoplous helps your case one whit. They were the obvious ones to investigate if Muller was working against Trump. (And even the obvious ones if Muller had been a neutral investigator, just after the truth.) I read the entire article and watched the FOX News video. It provided no support for your earlier claims that Nunes revealed information which contradicted the belief that Mueller was out to get Trump. None. Your most egregious misrepresentation was that Nunes reveled that Mueller was investigating the Steele Dossier. He said nothing of the sort. It was that assertion that prompted me to ask for quotes or links. I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. I hadn't.
Tom R: https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/13/devin-nunes-mueller-memo-dossier/ Thanks. I don't quite see how anything in that article supports the spin you've been putting on it. Where does it Nunes say or suggest that the scope memo, "explicitly tasked Mueller to investigate the Steele Dossier"? What he says is, " “And remember, I had these concerns that it was based upon the Steele dossier.” The implication is not that Mueller is investigating the Steele dossier, but rather investigating based on the Steele dossier. Very different! You also say the memo: "explicitly tasked Mueller to investigate Manafort (Swamp plant?), Page (FBI/CIA plant?) and Papadoplous (neoncon plant?)." Without those baseless parentheticals, all you've got is that Mueller was tasked to investigate those mentioned in the Steele dossier, or subjected to FISA warrants. And (not incidentally, I suspect), those who could most likely be squeezed for information harmful to Trump.
After seeing the unredacted Mueller SC scope memo, on Wednesday Devin Nunes said the previously redacted parts: 1) explicitly tasked Mueller to investigate the Steele Dossier. 2) explicitly tasked Mueller to investigate Manafort (Swamp plant?), Page (FBI/CIA plant?) and Papadoplous (neoncon plant?). Would you mind quoting and/or linking-to the specific things Nunes said about the scope memo?
May 10, 2019: Genuinely sorry to see you bow out. I do thank you for acknowledging in a roundabout way that wise Trump supporters know they can’t take everything Trump says 100% literally. The challenge as you and I and anyone else within an IQ higher than Forrest Gump knows is figuring out what is literal and what is deception. I freely admit that is not an easy task but I trust my judgement to get it right significantly more times than I get it wrong. Is anyone who disagrees that the challenge is unraveling the 4-D puzzle of Trump's statements a leftwinger or independent voter?
Toggle Commented Jun 13, 2019 on Bringing The CIA To Justice at JustOneMinute
In the future I would appreciate it if you don’t make up shit out of thin air just to try and score a point. I challenge you to find one example on this blog where I have ever applied the Forrest Gump comparison to anyone here at JOM who disagreed with me. Every time I have used it I explicitly made comparisons to leftwingers or independent voters, never fellow JOM posters. May 16, 2019: So will just about everyone. It would be the biggest plot twist in the Spygate movie script of them all. The thing is the reality as of today is that the Obama criminal cabal/silent coup members are trying to paint Comey as the ringleader behind the Steele dossier. Today we heard an absurdity from Baker that is akin to McCabe saying Rosenstein was serious about wearing a wire. The absurdity was that Comey was using the Steele dossier to blackmail Trump. How many people with an IQ higher than Forrest Gump believe Comey was trying to blackmail Trump? I beginning to think Comey was not in cahoots with the silent coup conspirators (Brennan, McCabe, Baker, Strzok etc). I must have overlooked the explicit comparison to leftwingers or independent voters. And, yes, I suspect Comey was attempting to send a message to Trump, that amounted to blackmail.
Toggle Commented Jun 13, 2019 on Bringing The CIA To Justice at JustOneMinute
My point was whatever the number is he and his team effed up a slam dunk had he just kept his damned mouth shut. At the time of the interview that got him in trouble, he didn't yet really have a team. That was the one that he was told was just a friendly chat, so he didn't need a lawyer. Doubtless Flynn shouldn't have believe them; though I wouldn't be surprised if within his service to the government, he'd had many conversations with the FBI, which were, in fact, merely information gathering, not setups.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2019 on Back At It-ish at JustOneMinute
What I think a lot of people, including me, find aggravating about Tom R is the arrogance and condescension with which he expresses his dubious theories. His "anyone smarter than Forrest Gump ..." dismissals of everyone who disagrees with him, and comments like: So far I'm the only poster here looking at the entire big picture which includes bringing the Obama criminal cabal to justice.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2019 on Back At It-ish at JustOneMinute
To R., if Flynn's legal bills are exaggerated, what exactly does that prove?
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2019 on Back At It-ish at JustOneMinute
In other words, the exact opposite of a “witch hunt”. Yes, the exact opposite! Of course, you might get some disagreement from General Flynn, Roger Stone, and those who spent thousands of dollars on legal fees as a result of an investigation based on transparent lies
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2019 on Back At It-ish at JustOneMinute
The Mueller report speaks for itself and as we have heard Trump proclaim numerous times since it was released, the outcome was very beneficial for him. What's the Bible say about straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel whole? That's Tom R. He believes Trump repeatedly tells baldfaced lies to everyone, including (through his agents) the courts, but can't fathom the notion that Trump may be spinning the Mueller report, to play up the ways it works in his favor. The report did help Trump, because it found no wrongdoing in regard to the campaign concluding with Russia. It found that, because there was none to find. However, the report still tried hard to suggest Trump obstructed justice, and in numerous ways tilted facts to make things look worse for Trump. For example, claiming as agents of Russia people more likely associated with western intelligence; omitting any mention of the Russian lawyer's relation to Fusion GPS; and the omissions in the Dowd phone call.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2019 on Back At It-ish at JustOneMinute
Or gamble. Either one.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2019 on The Longest Day at JustOneMinute
Instead of "is a risky strategy," I meant "would be a risky strategy."
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2019 on The Longest Day at JustOneMinute
From a Politico article on Flynn: In a text message to POLITICO, Giuliani said he was not Flynn’s new lawyer. Dershowitz replied that he’s not representing Flynn. DiGenova in an email wrote, “We are not at liberty to discuss.” The non-response is, of course, interesting, and fits with the rumor Miss Marple reported. If Flynn's plea deal is generous, as the article says, withdrawing from it is a risky gamble, considering the possibility of unrelated charges.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2019 on The Longest Day at JustOneMinute
Tom R, I doubt very much Durham will need to conduct that sort of fishing expedition to discover wrongdoing.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2019 on The Longest Day at JustOneMinute
That's a good point about the separate sovereigns doctrine, jim nj.
Yeah, I'm a state's rights guy and dislike the incorporation doctrine altogether... I think the incorporation doctrine follows pretty directly from the 14th Amendment, and was an intended consequence. I'm in favor of it. The rights in the Bill of Rights were considered to be natural rights, already possessed by free people, not something bestowed by government largess, so it makes sense to me that that the states shouldn't deny them.
Though I couldn't, with a quick search, find a definite answer to the question, I think it's likely that articles of impeachment expire at the end of the legislative session.