dagblog - Comments for "President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18"

Laurence Tribe retweeted by

artappraiser — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 04:45:17 +0000

In reply to President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18

Laurence Tribe retweeted by Claire McCaskill:

It’s a terrible, illogical, rambling, conclusory, rhetoric-heavy, foolish brief. But I’m not sure “the scream of a wild animal” is entirely fair. Ok, maybe a LITTLE wild animal. . . https://t.co/KoyxGjzjeH
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) January 21, 2020

Good news: Trump could not

artappraiser — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 04:33:58 +0000

In reply to President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18

Good news: Trump could not have picked a more corrupt and incompetent human being to represent him at the impeachment trial.

Bad news: he’s about to start yelling through our TVs again.

Help me beat Jordan in 2020 and stop the screeching: #OhioMike https://t.co/SR5NyliqJ8
— Mike Larsen for Congress (@MikeLarsenOH) January 21, 2020

Murdoch & Piers' own hacking

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 02:54:58 +0000

In reply to Lawyers doing the plausible

Murdoch & Piers' own hacking journalism scandal - big slush fund to hide how news is actually made/stolen.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/19/there-is-a-reason-...

W.H. (again) forces info on

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 02:51:24 +0000

In reply to Lawyers doing the plausible

W.H. (again) forces info on sanctioned briefing call to be attributed to unnamed sources

Oliver Darcy emails: The White House held a sanctioned briefing call over the weekend to relay info to reporters on the Trump legal team's strategy for the impeachment trial. But instead of holding it on record, deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley required reporters who wanted to use the info to attribute it to "people close to the legal team."

The AP's Zeke Miller pushed back, asking, "Is there any way you can move this on the record, since it's awfully weird to have a call with 'people close to a legal team' when we're talking to the legal team?" Gidley responded, "The answer to that question is no." This is of course strange given that Trump has told the American people not to trust information attributed to unnamed sources...

Grisham lashes out at 'righteous indignation'

Darcy continues: When I tweeted about this over the weekend, Grisham responded via Twitter. She wrote, in part, "I'm sorry you aren't happy w/ the way it was presented - but we were happy to give so many reported important info. today. Can we stop w the righteous indignation now?"

I tweeted back, "Stephanie, genuine question: Why isn’t info provided by the White House on sanctioned briefing calls attributable on the record? The President has literally told Americans not to trust info cited to unnamed sources. I truly cannot understand this practice given Trump’s rhetoric." Grisham never replied. As I wrote earlier this week, I've never received an ON THE RECORD answer to this question...

Reporters should ask!

Darcy adds: It's become common for reporters to accept these bizarre ground rules without challenging them. But it's worth asking: Why aren't these sanctioned briefings on the record? As Axios' Alayna Treene tweeted, "My reporter colleagues and I also need to be better about pressing the White House, congressional staff offices, etc. about this during official briefing calls."

FOR THE RECORD, PART TWO

-- Trump is averaging about nine false claims a day... (CNN)

-- "A Very Stable Genius" by Philip Rucker

Lawyers doing the plausible

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:26:04 +0000

In reply to President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18

Lawyers doing the plausible deniability thing because they are practicing political spin without a license and what's more doing it for a wild-card client:

We know from @brianstelter's newsletter https://t.co/f11OCHnbUD that "a person working with the president’s legal team" was in fact, the president's legal team. This ritual allows his lawyers to publicly float arguments without taking responsubility for their soundness. pic.twitter.com/T6laMUHnWb
— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) January 20, 2020

‘Garbage Dressed Up as Legal

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 20:30:47 +0000

In reply to President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18

‘Garbage Dressed Up as Legal Argument’: Lawyers, Law Profs ‘Baffled’ by Trial Memo’s Defense of Trump https://t.co/fLrDnWcIKo pic.twitter.com/gi1jYs08qH
— Law & Crime (@lawcrimenews) January 20, 2020

This isn't surprising. I knew

ocean-kat — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:26:49 +0000

In reply to CNN Unearths 1998 Video of

This isn't surprising. I knew Dershowitz could not believe many of the things he said to defend Trump. So why is he defending him with this nonsense? It's bizarre.

CNN Unearths 1998 Video of

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:43:31 +0000

In reply to Trump hired Starr &

CNN Unearths 1998 Video of Alan Dershowitz Endorsing Impeachment of President Who 'Corrupts the Office' and 'Abuses Trust'https://t.co/6WbHZL4B3z
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) January 20, 2020

Trump hired Starr &

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:03:13 +0000

In reply to President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18

Trump hired Starr & Dershowitz not because of their legal skills but because of their TV skills—which is where the court of public opinion is convened. The first filing by Trump’s lawyers makes clear that they have no interest in a substantive defense. https://t.co/KPC9MuEefH
— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) January 19, 2020

Firtash v Biden?

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 07:30:38 +0000

In reply to President Trump's formal response to the Senate Impeachment, dated Jan. 18

Firtash v Biden?

https://digbysblog.net/2020/01/the-firtash-connection/