My column this morning in the Hill discussed a call by columnist and professor Norm Ornstein to impeach Amy Coney Barrett if she does not yield to a demand to recuse herself from any election challenge before the Court. A demand for such recusal was filed yesterday in the Supreme Court. Ornstein’s call for impeachment is the latest unhinged response to Barrett nomination and further decouples our national debate from any sense rationality and restraint.
Ornstein declared on Twitter: “If Amy Coney Barrett goes on the Court and immediately votes for PA voter suppression, she should quickly be impeached. Trump asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”
I have already addressed the recusal calls as entirely baseless. Recusal under these circumstances would create a dangerous precedent for future nominees who are pressured to recuse solely to influence the outcome of pending or expected cases. There is not a single case in history where such a recusal of the justice has occurred under this type of flimsy claim. Barrett has no personal, professional, or financial interest in pending election cases.
We have had only one justice ever impeached in our history. That was Samuel Chase in 1804 and he was acquitted by the Senate in 1805.
The Chase case is a telling point of comparison. Like today, the politics of the time were lethal and hysterical. Chase was a highly partisan Federalist who was tainted by the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to attack political critics during the Administration of John Adams. The impeachment, supported by Thomas Jefferson, was based on Chase’s presiding on controversial trials for figures like James Callender. Despite the Federalist being in the minority in the Senate, the senators overwhelmingly rejected the case against Chase.
Norm Ornstein is, and always has been, a problematic individual. He is a right-winger who loves war. If you think the 'redemption' of hideous people by idiotic Democrats began with the Trump era, you are so wrong. Pig Boy Al Franken was the one to redeam Norm, his buddy. Al Franken was for the Iraq War, people forget that too. They also forget that in 2004, he was for the Iraq War and in 2005. They forget that he had Meg Ryan on his show and she called for an end to the war then, after she was no longer in the studio, he attacked her viewpoint and attacked her. That's the sort of person who is for Norm Ornstein. Norm has never had a helpful idea in the world.
We really should be a lot smarter and instead of wasting energy 'reforming' people who aren't worth an image rehab, we should be focusing on issues that can improve our lives.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Wednesday, October 28, 2020. The Biden scandal continues to fester, a 'reporter' writes a column that makes clear all the complaints we've made about her and we look at a feud and how women are not helping other women.
Starting in the United States where the long campaign season should wrap up after next Tuesday when voting should end. Joe Biden is the non-house broken pet of the media and they remain determined to carry him across the line. But there are problems on the horizon. Jeffrey Martin (NEWSWEEK) reports:
In an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News Tuesday night, Hunter Biden's former business partner Tony Bobulinski said that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did not want tighter controls placed around a holding company that did business with the Chinese government.
Bobulinski has claimed to have information linking the Biden family to shady business deals in China. When some documentation was published by the New York Post in October which purported to provide evidence, many claimed the story was based on uncorroborated sources. Bobulinski said in a Thursday press conference that he had documentation and electronic devices that would implicate the Bidens.
Pseudonyms for major players in the business were allegedly used in the emails including the word "chairman," which Bobulinski claims is how Hunter Biden referred to Joe Biden. Bobulinski said he had asked for tighter financial controls to be placed around Oneida Holdings, a company set up to handle dealings between the Bidens and Chinese energy company CEFC. According to Bobulinski, Hunter Biden replied by saying that his "chairman gave an emphatic no."
And here's the interview in question with US Navy veteran Tony Bobulinski.
Tuesday, Jonathan Turley observed:
In her interview with Joe Biden, CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell did not push Biden to simply confirm that the emails were fake or whether he did in fact meet with Hunter’s associates (despite his prior denials). Instead O’Donnell asked: “Do you believe the recent leak of material allegedly from Hunter’s computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?”
Biden responded with the same answer that has gone unchallenged dozens of times:
“From what I’ve read and know the intelligence community warned the president that Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians. And we also know that Putin is trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. And so when you put the combination of Russia, Giuliani– the president, together– it’s just what it is. It’s a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. What is he running on? What is he running on?”
It did not matter that the answer omitted the key assertion that this was not Hunter’s laptop or emails or that he did not leave the computer with this store.
Recently, Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid wrote said the quiet part out loud by telling the media: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”
Let that sink in for a second. It does not matter if these are real emails and not Russian disinformation. They probably are real but should be treated as disinformation even though American intelligence has repeatedly rebutted that claim. It does not even matter that the computer has seized the computer as evidence in a criminal fraud investigation or that a Biden confidant is now giving his allegations to the FBI under threat of criminal charges if he lies to investigators.
This should worry everyone. Ava and I pointed out:
Tara Reade is not going to go away -- nor should she. Here's the really scary thing: The press isn't going to change either. Should Joe Biden win the election, the press is going to continue to cover for him. If they couldn't investigate him during a campaign for the presidency, they're not going to suddenly start after he's sworn in. In fact, they're far less likely to -- it would require them admitting they'd made a mistake and hadn't done their jobs. As we've seen with regards to the Iraq War, confessing to malpractice isn't in the journalist make up.
Ava and I also note the attacks on Tony and how they echo the attacks on Tara. The press carries these attacks out at the request of the Biden campaign. The Biden campaign won't deal with the charges -- whatever the charges are -- they'll only launch smears and character attacks.
Bruce Golding (NEW YORK POST) reports:
A former Hunter Biden business partner said Tuesday he was warned against going public with information about their business dealings when another ex-partner told him: “You’re just going to bury all of us.”
During an appearance on Fox News, Tony Bobulinski said he spoke with former partner Rob Walker to demand that Walker get US Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to retract his claim that The Post’s recent reporting on Hunter Biden’s emails was part of a Russian-orchestrated “smear on Joe Biden.”
Host Tucker Carlson then played a snippet of an audio recording that Bobulinski said was part of the phone conversation.
“If he doesn’t come out, on record, I am providing the facts,” Bobulinski said.
“Ah, Tony, you’re just going to bury all of us, man,” Walker responded.
Bobulinski, a former US Navy lieutenant, said he was outraged by Schiff’s Oct. 16 comments on CNN, where Schiff attacked a series of reports by The Post about Hunter Biden’s emails.
Harriet Alexander (DAILY MAIL) zooms in on this:
After Bobiulinski said goodbye to Joe on May 3, he went to meet Jim at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he said.
Jim Biden, seven years younger than Joe, spent two hours discussing the family's story, and their careers.
Bobulinski told Carlson: 'I know Joe decided not to run in 2016, but what if he ran in the future - aren't they taking political risk or headline risk?
'And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying: "how are you guys getting away with this? Aren't you concerned?"
'And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit and said: "plausible deniability".
'He said it directly to me at the cabana at the Peninsula Hotel, after an hour and a half or two-hour meeting, with me asking out of concern how are you guys doing this, aren't you concerned you will put your future presidential campaign at risk, the Chinese, the stuff you guys have been doing already in 2015 and 2016 around the world.
'And I can almost picture his face where he sort of chuckles and says plausible deniability.'
Jim has not responded to DailyMail.com's request for comment.
THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, etc continues to avoid reality. But we don't live in a world where honesty and journalism go hand in hand. Example? We note THE NATIONAL when they've got something worth noting. We are especially careful about noting Mina al-Oraibi. She pretends to be an objective reporter but she's not. And her opinions frequently shape her coverage -- not by accident, by choice. She's not independent nor is she representing her own government (her dual citizenship is in the UK and Iraq). She is a mouthpiece for the US State Dept and, more importantly, for the US security lobby. Tell those truths and a lot of people get their feelings hurt. But we bring it up for those who refuse to see reality because 'reporter' Mina has a column at the US publication FOREIGN POLICY (a pro-war publication). I don't get how you write that column and then go on to pretend you're objective.
Mina needs to be writing clearly labeled columns for THE NATIONAL, not news reports. Her bias has leaked in to far too many of her so-called reports. We've called her out for it and for those who don't grasp why, read her FOREIGN POLICY column.
Let's weigh in on opinion for a moment so that Martha and Shirley don't have to continue to wade through the e-mails. There's some sort of conflict between Jimmy Dore and Ana Kasparian. Apparently, I have to weigh in according to e-mails. Wasn't planning to, certainly don't know all the details but if you want it, don't complain to me after I offer it. Jimmy Dore. An important voice. Do I always agree with him? No. I disagree with his take on Tulsi Gabbard. She was a fake ass. She gave Joe Biden a pass for the Iraq War in the debate and then spent days using her media time to excuse him. So don't tell me she's anti-war. She's nothing of the sort. She also, as Ana noted, refused to vote for Bernie's measure regarding the war. I also strongly disagreed with Jimmy's argument that the Green Party should have given this year's nomination to Jesse Ventura. How is that fair? He refused to campaign -- but did say he'd take it if it was given to him -- while others went out there and campaigned. Why would you do that? Why would you let people campaign and then, at the last minute, give the nomination -- gift it to them -- when they refused to campaign?
Those are the two times I've disagreed with Jimmy in the last 12 or so months. Those are both opinions -- meaning he could be wrong or I could be wrong. I'm sure we both feel strongly about the issue. But these are opinions. I do not have any problems with Jimmy over facts. And I think he's a very important voice and that's why we highlight him.
I want to like Ana. But she's a reactionary far too often. She's also a woman who does nothing to promote other women -- which is a lesson she honed at THE YOUNG TURKS -- one of the most vile and disgusting places. It is toxic and we've called TYT out for years.
Ana's now doing work with JACOBIN. Her weekend co-host died. Did you notice what happened after? She got a new co-host.
Is there a rule that the co-host has to be a man? I mean Rachel Maddow started out on AIR AMERICA RADIO with Lizz Winstead as her co-host. Two women, imagine that. (Chuck D was a co-host but he was largely a drop-by co-host and he was not on the bulk of the UNFILTERED broadcasts.)
It's not like JACOBIN is top heavy with women -- as either guests or hosts. They do all these solo pieces where a man -- and it's always a man -- looks into the camera and just gives a lecture. So I'm scratching my head over why JACOBIN couldn't get a female co-host. I guess the idea never occurred to Ana who comes from TYT.
A question we should all ask is why that is? Then we should be asking why, in 2020, we're letting our 'progressive' outlets get away with this crap?
Women aren't even half the guests on these shows. We're lucky if a woman is a co-host. Why are we acting like this is okay? Why are we letting 'progressive' outlets lecture us when they do so from a sexist platform?
Katie Halper is only going to be noted from now on if it's a female guest on the video clip. I'm not interested in all this male, male, male nonsense. Sorry to be that way but I'm not. Women have made no leaps and bounds on the internet. The same male gatekeepers got to establish the rules and far too many women have gone along with it. MOTHER JONES is run by two women who have made their 'star' contributors . . . two men. One of whom cheerleaded the Iraq War (the other of whom attacked those who protested the war). Laura Flanders presents as a feminist but her show can't feature an equal number of men and women. I really don't want to hear from Katie or any of them about the sexism they face. I don't deny that they face sexism. I just know that they have a platform that they could be using to make a difference and they refuse to do so.
Ana, Katie, Krystal, Laura, et al? Do you know why some people don't take you seriously? Because you're women. And, guess what, my heart doesn't break for you.
You decide who you will bring on to your shows. By making women half your guests, you would be saying, "Women matter. Women can speak to issues. Women are half the population." You don't do that. And you suffer as a result because your shows feature men over and over and, in doing so, put forth the lie that the male opinion matters more.
That's what you say when you refuse to bring on women in equal numbers.
Now at THIRD right now, Ava and I are focused on ALL SONGS MATTER which is top heavy with men each Friday. But we find that to be the case over and over regardless of what program we're tracking or what magazine. Remember we traced the by-lines for THE NATION to document how awful that was (and turned down bribes -- offering Ava and I space in the magazine to shut up and stop our study mid-year was a bribe). Why are we having to fight with, for example, THE NATION over their refusal to publish an equal number of women to men? If you missed that reality, go read "The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?" and if you don't have the time, the answer is 149. They published 491 pieces with a male byline and 149 with a female. And this is when not only was Katrina vanden Heuvel in charge (she still is) but Betsy Reed had a say in all of this as well.
Women are not helping other women. That's the reality. We see it at THE NATION, we see it at MOTHER JONES. We see it on Katie Halper's podcast and on others.
So, no, I'm not on Ana's side -- mainly because she's not on the side of women.
The following sites updated: