Yes, Ben Shapiro, Michigan voters actually do want “a president respected by Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau”

In the wake of last week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing in which constitutional law scholars Pamela Karlan, Noah Feldman, and Michael Gerhardt offered testimony on the constitutional basis for Donald Trump’s impeachment, the Republicans didn’t have much of a counter argument. As we discussed at the time, they paraded out a Republican shill by the name of Jonathan Turley to make some specious legal claims that didn’t hold up to scrutiny, but given that almost every constitutional law scholar in the United States is in agreement on the fact that what Donald Trump’s conduct in office has been impeachable, they didn’t really have much to work with. So, they turned on the legal scholars who had come forward, accusing them of being ivory tower academics, and members of the “liberal elite” who, according to them, just didn’t like Donald Trump. White House spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway, for instance, attacked Professor Karlan on Fox, where she said, “If you went to work today to manicure nails, to manicure lawn, if you went to work with a jackhammer or a welding machine… that woman yesterday looks her nose down on you… who the hell are you, lady?

I guess the argument here is that we should have the constitution interpreted by someone who paints nails or operates a welding machine instead of by the co-director of Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. It makes total sense, right? I mean it’s not as though one needs to dedicate one’s life to the study of the law, and co-author “leading casebooks on constitutional law, constitutional litigation, and the law of democracy,” just to understand the complicated history of how our constitution came to be, and interpret The Federalist Papers. And one doesn’t have to have been a law clerk under both Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Abraham D. Sofaer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, just to understand all of the case law around the subject of impeachment, going back to 1799. Who needs a law degree, after all, when we have all the information at our fingertips thanks for Fox News? We now live in a time that we can all become legal scholars like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson.

The above video, of the President identifying Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson as legal scholars, was shot at the recent NATO summit in London… As you may recall, several conservative commentators were suggesting that it was good move on Trump’s part to leave country during the impeachment inquiry in order to attend the conference of world leaders. They said that it would give Trump an opportunity to demonstrate that, while the Democrats were focused on impeachment, he was focused instead on doing the people’s work, and strengthening our relationships with other heads of state. Well it didn’t really turn out that way. Donald Trump ended up leaving the summit early, in a huff, after video was released of other world leaders laughing at him. If you haven’t seen the footage yet, you can see it here, in a new, absolutely devastating add released by the Biden 2020 campaign.

So, that brings us to the present, and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s comment about how Michigan voters, in his opinion, don’t give a shit what world leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau think about Donald Trump… Here’s his comment.

For what it’s worth, Kellyanne Conway said that these world leaders were mocking Donald Trump out of jealously, because he, in her words, “commands the room.” And GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel announced that it didn’t matter anyway, as Donald Trump “is not running for a world popularity contest.” Of course, Donald Trump saw it differently when he was a candidate for office, stating repeatedly that, under the Obama administration, the world was “laughing at us” — something that he promised would stop if he were elected president. Of course, no world leaders were actually laughing at Obama during his administration, and people are now actually openly laughing at Donald Trump.

Back to Shapiro’s comment, I’m offended by the suggestion that Michigan voters don’t know enough to care about international relations, but, for the purposes of this post, I’d rather focus on the bigger picture, which is that conservatives are clearly trying to stir up class warfare in service of the President. They want people to believe that anyone who stands up against Donald Trump is an ivory tower intellectual, or someone who cares more about the feelings of the French than about the day-to-day struggles of the American people. And that simply isn’t the case. As Morning Consult demonstrated in their most recent poll, the people of Michigan, who gave Trump a victory in 2016, now overwhelmingly disprove of his performance in office. And the same is true in Wisconsin… Ben Shapiro can spout all he wants about how the people of the midwest don’t care, or don’t understand what’s going on, but, the truth is that we do. We know what’s going on, we know that Donald Trump is a corrupt laughing stock, and we want him out of office.

This entry was posted in Michigan, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

41 Comments

  1. John Brown
    Posted December 7, 2019 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Ruskie stooge, Mussolini wannabe, string him up.

  2. Jackie Speier by proxy
    Posted December 7, 2019 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    The fact that @POTUS will not present a defense like Clinton and Nixon did in the House Judiciary Committee says it all. He has NO defense.

  3. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Mark wants to fallaciously appeal to authority when the authority agrees with him; simultaneously, Mark fails to recognize the valid basis of perspectives of others when those others don’t agree with him. I don’t want to insinuate that Mark is displaying his own sexism. I really don’t. I think the glitchy-ness of this post , instead, grows out of his fundamental narcissism though.

    Yes, Kelley Anne Conway and Laura Ingraham are both blonde and female, and obviously, neither of these ladies agree with Mark on much, but Mark fails, for some reason, to recognize that both of these ladies share more in common with the 500 pro impeachment authorities he is fallaciously appealing to. Conway and Ingraham are both Doctors of Jurisprudence!

    I apologize for informing Mark of this fact because he seemed so proud of his little opinion and tweet.

    Mark mysteriously asserts: “almost every constitutional law scholar in the United States is in agreement on the fact that what Donald Trump’s conduct in office has been impeachable…“

    Where the fuck is this assertion coming from? Liberal UM has close to 100 law professors. I quickly counted 5-7 UM professors that signed the pro impeachment letter. Does Mark have some insight into what the other 85%, or so, of law professors at Michigan are thinking? Does Mark have an insight, he would like to share about the beliefs of the other tens of thousands of law professors out there?

    Finally, what is the deal with Mark speaking for residents of Michigan? Mark was not born here and the time he has spent he has lived, worked, or went to college in the Ypsi Arbor college bubble…

    Time for Mark to take an inventory of his bias? Perhaps it is time for Mark to take a deeper dive into the primary psychological causes for his bias.

  4. Jean Henry
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    FF does not understand the difference between a JD and being a constitutional law scholar.

    This reminds me of climate denialism and how they conflate ‘scientist’ with ‘climate scientists’ and then go looking for examples of skepticism, which are inherent to the scientific process, or when truly corrupt, paid for by the oil industry– just as Conway and Ingrahan get their bread buttered by Fox News and the far right.

    PS Conway’s husband George who has argued and won cases in the SCOTUS (but is still not a constitutional scholar) disagrees with her. https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1202277765917167616?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

  5. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Wrong Jean.

    1) The professors on the list of 500 are not all constitutional law scholars.

    2) Mark foolishly mocked the notion that Ingraham was a “legal scholar”— he did question whether or not she was a constitutional law scholar.

    3) Mark dismissed Conway as a “spokeswoman” with no legal insight.

    4) Those Fox programs host people who are legal professionals all the time. So “watching Tucker”, who has no law degree, probably meant “listening to the guests, of Tucker, who are legal professionals and who appear on his show”. Duh.

    5) It does not require constitutional law expertise to know that Trump CAN be impeached; and there is certainly disagreement amongst legal scholars if he OUGHT to be impeached and OUGHT to be removed from office.

    Mark’s framing of the issue is wack. I literally was snorting and laughing when I read first read this post—then I woke up in the middle of night, re-read it, and felt deeply disturbed.

    Conway and Ingraham are brainless sellouts though….right…

  6. Jean Henry
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I would never accuse Conway or Ingraham of being brainless.

  7. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    I should have directed that last little point to Mark. “Brainless” was a poor word choice anyway. mark’s assumption was that they do not have any legal expertise—although they do. (As if it even matters in the first place.)

    IMO Mark’s writing on this has been very poorly thought out and filled with convenient assumptions to feed his lame narrative that he hopes will function to serve his desires. The problem for him is the average person is not as dumb as he thinks they are.

    These are my opinions…I know I am coming across as harsh but I think an irresponsible narrative is being spun here…

  8. Anonymous
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but I’m trying to understand this. Is your point, FF, that Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson are “legal scholars” as Donald Trump said, and that Mark was off-base by mocking Trump for having said that? Is your point that they know as much about the constitution as the three esteemed professors that testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week? I’m finding this fascinating.

  9. Sad
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    FF what do you have against Mark? Is this some sort of personal crusade? Is there some bad blood between you two? Are you obsessed? Do you really wake up in the middle of the night thinking about this blog?

  10. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Anonymous,

    You find it fascinating because you are confused, like Mark. Exactly like Mark.

    Why. As you suggest, would I say Sean Hannity is a legal scholar? Did I not point out that Tucker does not have a background in law? Did I not offer another explanation for Trump’s comment regarding Tucker and Hannity? Did I not explain that you do not need to be constitutional law scholar to know that we CAN impeach?

    I’m sorry Anonymous but I don’t even believe you are confused or fascinated if we are being honest. I think you are pretending to be those things as you try to gaslight because you think it is to your advantage.

    Is Mark appealing to Authority? Are Ingraham and Conway Doctors of Jurisprudence? Do almost all constitutional legal scholars agree that Trump ought to be impeached As Mark suggested or is that just a bullshitty statement because 500 is a big number?

    #authoritarianimpulse
    #irresponsiblenarrative

  11. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Sad,

    If I had all the time in the world I would be attacking the bullshit on this blog at at 10x the rate. I am actually using a lot of discretion on what I choose to complain about. The bullshit here is seemingly endless and multi-layered. I think a lot of people think I, EOS and HW nitpick but I think we let a lot stuff go…I like to think Mark will thank me someday. He is a bright guy who has for some reason has grown to love his narrative more than the truth.

    If I hated Mark personally I would have accused him of sexism.

  12. Sad
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    I’ll Thank-you.

    For sparing me the 10x more words you could be contributing.

    You really use a lot of words.

    You could really do 10x more? I dare you. Double dare you.

  13. Lynne
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Yawn. The worst part of FF’s BS is that it is boring

  14. Sad
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    I find the self – righteousness to be worse the monotony.

  15. Jean Henry
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    FF you really need to find a productive use for your obsessive energy. It’s like you are a hamster on a wheel when you could be actually getting somewhere. I don’t understand why anyone would spend time commenting daily on. blog with which they disagree, I do it occasionally around local politics (because it may have some actual impact) and it’s really frustrating and tiresome. I used to think you can learn things by discussing politics with people with whom you disagree. I still believe that. But those conversations aren’t productive when everyone is set and unlovable in their positions. They are also less interesting. They become redundant. Two hamsters running opposite directions on a wheel. All energy wasted; no momentum. I have conversations with conservatives all the time. When I worked in a diner I had a group of Republican engineers who would come in every weekday at 10am to argue Reagan era politics with me. We had a great time. My family is fond of political discourse about just about anything, so long as we don’t all agree– which is most of the time. But FF, you are a bloviating bore. HW is a, insecure maniac. EOS is an ideologue. There are many more interesting conservative thinkers out there. Or there used to be. I feel like you do them all a disservice.

  16. Jean Henry
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    *Unmoveable not unloveable, although unlovable people are often unloveable.

  17. Jean Henry
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Oh autocorrect!

  18. Jean Henry
    Posted December 8, 2019 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    My holiday gift to my siblings every year is to host my parents for the holidays. I suppose, in a similar way, we are doing FF’s family a service by occupying him here and allowing him an alternative venue for his scolding man-splaining ways. I imagine they can breath a sigh of relief when he’s tapping away in the basement.

  19. Anonymous
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Outrage vs satire.

    https://www.salon.com/2019/12/08/irony-and-outrage-part-2-why-colbert-got-serious-and-why-donald-trump-isnt-funny/

  20. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Let me bore you propaganda enablers one more time.

    Mark’s primary argument is that we should impeach and he is willing to bend the truth or ignore the truth to try to convince others of his opinion. Here, Mark argues that Trump is guilty of pretending that, regarding impeachment issues, we should 1) listen to people who have zero legal expertise (like Conway, Ingraham, Tucker, Hannity, and Shapiro); rather than 2) listen to the expert opinion, which according to Mark, is held by “almost all constitutional law scholars”— that we OUGHT to remove Trump from office.

    The problem with Mark’s argument is neither 1 or 2 seem to be true. Conway, Ingraham, and Shapiro have law degrees and Tucker and Hannity regularly host legal professionals, who discuss impeachment, on their shows. More importantly 2 seems to also be a false premise and their are multiple ways to test the truthfulness of Mark’s assertion. Here is one way: Wikipedia has a list of 75 US constitutional law scholars. I took a sample of the first 10 living scholars on the list. Would you believe my sample yielded zero matches between the constitutional scholar list and the pro-impeachment letter? Zero! Yet almost all constitutional law scholars agree we ought to remove Trump from office? Where is Mark’s truth claim coming from?

    Again I apologize if shining a light on intentional (or unintentional) propaganda feels boring to JH and Lynne. I am bored too. I am hoping to end the boring “no malarkey tour” I am on but I need help from the propagandists, accidents propagandists, and their enablers.

  21. Sad
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    FF you’re the only one reading the blog.

    Relax.

  22. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Where do Schiff be at?

  23. Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    FF– It is impossible to read your remarks when you double down on your bullshit. Just stop,

    A law degree does not make one a constitutional scholar. Having pundits who are lawyers on a Fox News punditry show does not in any way confer authority on constitutional issues.

    You can re-package the same bullshit over and over and it’s still bullshit. It stinks by the second line.
    Just stop.

    Or go on knowing no one is reading. If you must.

  24. Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Anonymous– excellent article. It doesn’t mention (maybe in part 1) how it is political outrage that the Russians harness for their disinformation campaigns (which only attempt to disrupt not direct). They target people on the far left and right but the strategy has proven less effective with liberals. I wonder if that’s because liberals balance their outrage with more discernment. Ironically it is openness that leads to better discernment– one must acknowledge that one doesn’t know it all… Maybe Russian disinformation campaigns don’t play as well to us because he heart of liberalism (small l) is the acceptance of multiple points of view (because that creates the most productive discourse and the best solutions. )

  25. Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    One if these days I’m going to make a list of all the political ironies that become apparent in special media discourse– like that conspiracy theorists are often better informed about their area of obsession but that that high degree of information, because it is always one sided, does not lead to more reasonable conclusions.

  26. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    So, is Jean saying almost all constitutional law scholars agree Trump should be removed from office? Yes or no? If yes, then can Jean direct me to the place where this fact is documented? The list of 500 legal scholars that signed the pro impeachment letter are not all constitutional law scholars, yes or no? There are many many constitutional law scholars (perhaps thousands) who did not sign the pro impeachment letter yes or no?

    I don’t doubt that Jean smells bullshit. I do question whether or not Jean knows the source of the foul odor.

  27. Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    “Hannity, while he may technically be a hybrid show because he’s a little entertainment and is not really a journalist, he does everything he can to hide that from you. He speaks like someone who is to be trusted, there’s no room for questions. He has the information. Between that and the constant orientation toward threat, it’s really a fascinating kind of content to observe through that lens, because it really works so consistently with the conservative psychology.” — from part 1 to the article Anonymous posted.

    OMG. FF is exactly like Hannity.

    I often argue against irony even though I’m inclined to it. I think it’s self-distancing but that self-distancing has some utility when one is in danger of being made a mark. Interesting…

  28. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    “Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 11:02 am | Permalink
    One if these days I’m going to make a list of all the political ironies that become apparent in special media discourse– like that conspiracy theorists are often better informed about their area of obsession but that that high degree of information, because it is always one sided, does not lead to more reasonable conclusions.”

    You call me a conspiracy theorist but I read everything I can from all angles. You have a problem with free thinkers because you do it the opposite: you are constantly compelled to make false assumptions to prop up your erroneous belief system. I learn all I can first so I don’t go letting my words get me in trouble.

  29. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Many of their arguments seem to rely on a mashup of twitter snippets that are half-truths at best. Their brains are addicted to Twitter, I believe. I find it kind of sad they would sign up to have their brains systematically destroyed. When you expose their obvious non-sense they call you boring or a conspiracy theorists.

    I don’t understand how many here could find it so exciting to make shit up, or borrow someone else’s shit, to prop up their favorite bullshit narratives. How could that mode of being be satisfying at all? Very strange.

  30. Sad
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Twitterfied!

  31. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    10 Twitterfield Lane

    (With a different ending.)

  32. Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Waiting for the GOP talking point spin on this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/internal-justice-watchdog-finds-russia-probe-was-justified-not-biased-n1098161

  33. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    The questioning of Daniel Goldman is hilarious. People’s Court level acting. More rehearsed. Less skilled. It is fucking crazy and weird. Very weird.

  34. Jean Henry
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    FF– you should just accept that you are incapable of absorbing other points of view. That’s why you are always so shocked and dismayed and feel a need to call those with whom you disagree liars etc. You are immune to changing your point of view. And so much of what you see here might as well come from twitter because right wing media feeds it’s talking points to twitter and from it. It’s all the same thing on the right.

    HW– you too. Better run to twitter to find out how to spin the IG report.

  35. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Jean,

    Do almost all constitutional law scholars agree that Trump should be removed from office? Yes or no? If yes, then where can I find the document that backs up Mark’s truth claim? If no (or maybe) then what in your opinion should be the status of Mark’s truth claim? Bullshitty? Irresponsible? Ficticious? Unproven?

    The questioning of Goldman is occurring on CNN, Fox, MSNBC—and it is all the same live coverage. Have you not noticed I try to deal with primary sources.

  36. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Jean,

    Again, please show me an example of a time that I accused someone of being a liar merely because I disagree with them or merely because there is a difference of opinion, as you suggest. I reserve the term liar for egregious misrepresentations wherein there is no other plausible explanation for the misrepresentation.

  37. EOS
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Both Barr and Durham disagreed with Horowicz’ opinion that the Russian probe was justified. They both have seen all the documents. Durham is the one who has the ability to bring charges and has been running a separate criminal investigation for many months. If I were you JH, I wouldn’t do the happy dance yet. No spin – the truth.

  38. Lynne
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Oh, you have called me a liar just because I have expressed an opinion you disagreed with, FF. If you think it was because I made egregious misrepresentations wherein there is no other plausible explanation for the misrepresentation, then you are lying to yourself. At the very least I don’t think many agree with you that my statements have been such.

  39. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Where?

  40. Sad
    Posted December 9, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    All this impeachment and FISA stuff is bunk! Who cares – everybody looks bad.

    Another great day for Mayor Pete though. I think he’s figuring out how to stay in the headlines.

    https://www.theroot.com/pete-buttigieg-on-institutional-racism-economic-inequa-1840314149

  41. Lynne
    Posted December 10, 2019 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    FF, here on this blog for everyone to see. Why do you think folks here think you call people liars when you disagree with them? It is because you do that. No, I am not going to waste my time finding examples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Bat Attack