Engorgeous George

You forgot incontinence, excessively fetid flatulence, the bloaty bloats and terminal smugness. As for your estimate that Trump lies 100 times more than Biden I wiould venture to guess its no more than 10 to 20 times. Take that!

He should have voluntarily relinguished his license. Unfortunately for him, in a twist on the old adage, he had a fool for a lawyer instead of a fool for a client

Well good coke and great whorers are.

And I see Biden as half empty.

Under used.

So Bragg, Willis, and Smith. I would almost, but not quite be O.K. with this. Not for what they did to Trump, but for the other matters, serious crime, which went neglected to concentrate resources on Trump.

So the idealist is also a cynic. Interesting as I, the cynic, hold out some idealistic hope that you are wrong about this. Oh, and BTW, you may be correct, I simply hope not.

Well for 198 years, then Nixon pushed this barrier pretty good. Had a few circumstances been different in the Iran contra affair Reagan may have pushed this more.

I feel Nixon was headed there.

The kind that turns white?

I think one could try to make the case that their appearent bias, the apearance of impropriety, violates the penumbra of their oath to protect and defend the constitution. The Supremes like penumbras.

Yeah it really is having happened only once. AOC's urge to impeach is based upon her disagreement with a pretty well reasoned and sound ruling that went against her political desires, not based upon violation of any Constitutional duty the Court has. Her articles of impeachment are going to be the overreach of a prosecutor was not sustained by the Supremes when she liked that overreach. That is not probable cause to even have an inquiry.

Samuel Chase is the only Justice to ever be impeached, if I remember correctly. His impeachment was not based upon disagreement with a sound ruling but his complete lack of judicial temperment. As many barriers have been broken down in the last decade I suppose this barrieer is susceptible as well.

What would be the constitutional provision allowing for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?

I am unsure where that might have lead. If Richardson is fired and it is an official act, which it seems clear it would be, the question then devolves to whether congress or a prosecutor could have made him talk (or maybe he wanted to talk) and whether that is covered by Presidential Immunity. Clearly Richardson was the people's attorney and not the President's, but under the logic of the present decision it seems clear the Presidential immunity goes to his thoughts in making hiring and firing decisions so Richardson could not talk, even if he wanted to, or at least him talking could not be used as evidence in court. What that would have meant for any impeachment or prosecutions is an open question. There were lots of talkers as I recall, though not immediately. I suspect a strong case could still have been made, particularly once the Rosemary Wood tapes were divulged. As I recall Liddy and Colson were real chatty after a bit of time. This does to some extent bring back the Nixon claim t\aaht if the Presdient does it it is not illegal, or perhaps more properly accountable due to immunity. In the end this present Court seems to have correctly analyzed the little precedent before them and seems to have taken a cautious approach with their remand. I know some are upset at where that leaves Jack Smith's case prior to the election but he could very easily have not overcharged. He could have proceeded on just Trump's interactions with the state actors and he would seem to have been alright. Who knows, Smith may yet determine to do so

Looking forward to some pundit analyzing the attempt to impeach Myorkas in light of this decision.

Did she cite the power under which this would be done?

Many of you must be fast readers, and even faster at appreciating what you read. This over 100 page opinion with concurrances and dissents seems nuanced. I have yet to get to the concurrances or the dissents. After I do i am sure i will have to read the whole thing at least a second time to feel comfortable commenting, yet it seems we have a few here who are comfortable arguing the matter. I congratualte them all on their fast reading and superior comprehension.

The Quad cities are nice, so nice that the two on the Illinois side ought to be annexed inbto Iowa as illinois doesn't deserve them and frankly they don't fit in with the rest of Illinois.

No worries. Many fine intellects have disagreed with me across a vast swath of subjects. You are in very good company. Me, while I may have agreed with some of Trump's stands those were policies he adopted out of expediance, or so I believe, and were not strongly held philosophical positions. Basically I felt a relative dummy, like a blind squirrel, managed to find a few acorns. Obviously though I may be wrong and you may well be correct.

He did. He looked somewhat better but still ate his words, lost track momentarily, and seemed confused about leaving the stage after. Still, no denying, on a teleprompter he was somewhat better. The thing for me is he is clearly below whatever standard serious people should have for the leader of the free world. He was never smart. Now he is emfeebled on top of that. These arguments about which of the two major party candidates is the least unqualified, relative to each other is sad. We ought to do better. We NEED to do better and those arguing that either is qualified for the job are only continuing the downward spiral which has lead us here and will eventually take us right down the toilet drain, if that has not already happened.

The Dems will keep him out of sight for the next few days. Then we will see him vigorously riding his bike at the beach of the fourth. Vigourously pulling his aluminum beackh chair two feet to get under his beach umbrella and perhaps even posing with his vigourous, very manly, and completely honest corvette. The week after Trump will be sentenced. They hope this will all blow away but eventually he will have to speak again. There may have been some talk of having him vigourously golfing but his handlers are worried he will get stuck in a sand trap and need rescue. Meanwhile Donald will explain that Stormy Daniels was not really a star, more of just a collaborating performer, and so he did not lie. He will then get to a Taco Bell or a Raceway and buy food for the crowd who gathers. Also, unconfirmed reports are that he will replace Joey Chestnut in the Nathan's Hot dog Eating contest where everybody will say nobody has ever eaten more than he.

I think both men actually believe their own lies. Quite sad, really. What must it be like to be that self-deluded?

Plus Iowans have the common sense to be suspicious of F.I.B.s.

Are you suggesting he abuses ice cream cones?