Away We Go

I'm sure some outrage has struck me dumb. Mute, that is. And numbed my fingers...

Comments

[Threadkiller]

"When asked if the former President Bush could be credited with keeping the U.S. safe after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Trump compared 9/11 happening on Bush’s watch to the other team scoring “19 runs in the first inning,” but “after that we played well.”"

[Appalled]

George W. Bush afterwards established a twitter account and complained that the"Real Donald Trump" was as morally bankrupt as most of his companies, and only p*ssies whined for America -- he fought for it."

[Threadkiller]

Twit for twat.

[narciso]

kabuki is the name of the game,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/16/3-reasons-not-to-trust-republicans-failure-theater-on-scalia-replacement/

[Rick Ballard]

How can Trump considered to be be morally bankrupt when he has the Code Pink endorsement? Doesn't that prove he has the same reservoir of morality as that held by the last President they endorsed?

[narciso]

like I say the trump bait shop is kind of boring,
what really draws the crowds is the broken crockery the top men, have left abandoned for the better part of a decade,

[narciso]

here pops up the ground hog,

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/02/ex-guantanamo-detainee-prominently-featured-al-qaeda-propaganda.php

[narciso]

it's odd what concerns them:

http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2016/02/never-ending-war-federal-whistleblowers/125896/?oref=govexec_today_nl

[Barbara]

What troubles me is this: why didn't GWB speak out in defense of the actions he took during the time of his presidency? Why didn't he speak out six or seven years ago when Obama was blaming him for everything from decisions in the war to the failures on Wall Street? Only now, when his brother's campaign has not/can not achieve any traction does he come out to speak. (And I don't buy that "turn the other cheek" stuff either.)

As for Trump, he's playing long term, thinking ahead to the debates with the Democrat's choice. He runs a campaign that is contrary to everything we've seen in the oh-so-careful Republican establishment for many years. It's like a roller coaster ride, but my guess is that he's not playing for the small percentage in the middle; he's playing for a much wider audience.

We'll see. At least it's not boring. :)

[PDinDetroit]

I believe that the "Trumplosion" will occur and it will be a "take my toys and go home" moment, but not necessarily leave the Presidential Race. Whether he ends up as a Independent Candidate or not has already been set-up by his comments recently about "stacked audiences" booing him during the debates and that this violates the agreement not to run as an Independent.

Might be interesting election though with Trump being an Independent Candidate leaning (R) and Bloomberg being an Independent Candidate leaning (D).

[Appalled]

Barbara:

Trump is no fool -- I agree to that. He knows what he is trying to do -- and I think he has cleverly constructed a persona that allows the ugly parts of personality full reign, without damaging himself too much.

He still shouldn't be President.

[jimmyk]

What troubles me is this: why didn't GWB speak out in defense of the actions he took during the time of his presidency?

I can understand a President not wanting to get down in the gutter to respond to all the slander and lies. He had people to do that for him--the various press secretaries and other spokesmen. Maybe they didn't do it enough, or strongly enough, or maybe it wouldn't have made any difference. People will say and at least pretend to believe whatever they want, and it's very hard to get them to admit they were wrong. There are still many who think Sarah said "I can see Russia from my house!" If part of the media spreads lies, it's the responsibility of others in the media to call them on it.

[narciso]

well we're talking about presenting facts that were available as we discovered from wikileaks cable traffic, of course the dems shut down the online Iraq regime archives on some pretext, but they needed to be skilled in information warfare,

[lyle]

If part of the media spreads lies, it's the responsibility of others in the media to call them on it.

ROFLMAO

/wipestears

[jimmyk]

PDinDetroit, if he wins one or both of NC and NV he's not going anywhere till at least after Super Tuesday. Pretty sure it will be difficult at that point to get on the ballot in most states as a 3rd party candidate.

[lyle]

You're such a kidder, jimmyk. :)

[jimmyk]

ROFLMAO

I know, lyle, but I'm reluctant to blame Bush. If he had spent a lot of time and energy defending himself, it would have looked pathetic, and not been effective. You have to put the responsibility where it belongs.

[Cecil Turner]

Schumer today:

What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up.

What he actually said:

The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.

Yeah, that's exactly the same . . . right?

[boris]

"maybe it wouldn't have made any difference"

Maybe not.

Even here sometimes it is simply a waste of effort to explain, much less defend, GWB.

[PDinDetroit]

Posted by: jimmyk | February 16, 2016 at 01:47 PM

jimmyk - On Fox, GWB said something to the effect of that he has too much respect for the Office of President to comment about the person currently holding the position. I would guess that applied to his Presidency as well, where he chose to be the President and ignore the criticism of the person. This "act of class" was lost on far too many as perhaps many were not taught it or had it modeled for them.

I do believe though that GWB should have spoken out more about criticism of his Actions while holding the Office.

[Cecil Turner]

As for Trump, he's playing long term, thinking ahead to the debates with the Democrat's choice.

By going farther left than even they're willing to go? And I should vote for him because he has an R by his name, even though on my one deciding issue, he's actually worse than the Democrat?

I'd say "good luck with that," but I wouldn't mean it.

[lyle]

You forgot this quotable quote from Chuck U, CT (courtesy of Powerline):

“I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito.”

[PDinDetroit]

There are still many who think Sarah said "I can see Russia from my house!"

Mrs PDinD thought that, until I showed her the clip from SNL of Tina Fey and another clip of Sarah speaking. I believe it was the start of her epiphany of the depths of deception and left-wing slant the News Media currently portrays.

[narciso]

the difference with the huntress, is she had most sof the campaign staff acting with malice against her, along with some of the top men like murphy and madden,

[Clarice]

Schumer's an unprincipled partisan hack who I believe worked with Kerry and Ambassador Munchausen to create the Bush lied meme.

[Cecil Turner]

I do believe though that GWB should have spoken out more about criticism of his Actions while holding the Office.

So do I, but the idea he didn't try is revisionist nonsense. That whole Libby thing was an attempt to counter the propaganda with selected declassified info; but in a war of leaks, the guys who have to protect classified information are at a prohibitive disadvantage. And they had the little complication of a war to run.

The one thing I really fault him for is that he lost his conviction there toward the end. Even while prosecuting the Surge, he tacitly admitted the steps his guys were taking amounted to obstruction . . . with predictable results in subordinates willing to stick their necks out. It's a common but lamentable phenomenon that those most focused on loyalty fail to recognize it as a two-way street . . . and on that score, failing to pardon Scooter was unconscionable. (As Dick Cheney has already--and appropriately--beaten near to death.)

[PDinDetroit]

Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 16, 2016 at 02:00 PM

Just curiosity, but what is your one deciding issue (if you want to share)?

[narciso]

yes inspector dreyfus was his creature, to borrow a neologism from no way out.

[PDinDetroit]

From what I have seen of politicians of late, they have some interesting and/or great ideas about how to address problems and tame the Beast that is Government. Once elected though, they are ground down, abandon principles under the guise of "cooperation", and end up feeding the Beast of Government just like the others.

[Cecil Turner]

Just curiosity, but what is your one deciding issue (if you want to share)?

National security. (Which, given the unfortunate state of the national debt, now encompasses more than a few economic issues as well . . . though I remain sorely ignorant of the finer points of most of those.)

[lyle]

http://patterico.com/2016/02/16/get-back-loretta-go-home/

Patterico poses an interesting thought:

Goldstein says Kamala Harris probably wants to be a California Senator and then President, leaving Loretta Lynch as the most likely black nominee.

Leftists would howl with delight. Ha ha Republicans will have to reject the first black female nominee! Racists and sexists! But I think such a nomination might be a gift of sorts for Republicans, if they play their cards right. Can you imagine the fun they could have in the hearings, asking her about Hillary’s emails? or about her burning desire to throw people in jail for “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges towards violence” (despite the very different Constitutional standard that applies)?

But do the Rs have the guts to challenge LoLynch in the hearings? I can already hear McLame and the little bitch from S. Carolina defending her against the mean ole' Rs asking anything that might make her feel uncomfortable. Why take that chance?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Given the perfidious nature of the press I'm doubtful Bush could have effectively defended himself from the lies by speaking out more.
Might very well have been counterproductive.

[narciso]

whelp we saw not defending one's policies, wrought,
people internalized the lie,

[Thomas Collins]

For me, the issue is not why GWB did or didn't say what he did or didn't say. For me, the issue is, now that Trumpster has done us the favor of removing all doubt that he is more suited to run a moveon.org blog than be POTUS, how can he still be taken seriously as a potential POTUS?

[lyle]

Apologies if someone has linked to this from last week:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-iran-took-obama-hostage.html

This is the diplomatic version of an abusive relationship. Iran slaps around Obama, but when the cops arrive, Obama curses out the cops and yells that everything is fine. When the cops take Obama aside, he explains that it’s the hardliner IRGC side of Iran that is abusive, but that he’s in a relationship with the loving moderate side of Iran that doesn’t really mean it when it shouts “Death to America.”

It’s not just an episode of COPS. It’s also what the Democratic Party’s foreign policy looks like now.

If you think normalization with Iran is bad now, imagine an Iranian terror attack on American soil that kills 85 people and leads to a cover-up of such massive proportions that it includes the murder of a top prosecutor. It happened in Argentina. It would be foolish to imagine that it couldn’t happen here.

Bern and Hilligula are proposing we move even more aggressively to "normalize" with Iran.

[narciso]

volodya's strategy may be counterproductive, but this subcontracting the syrian rebels, to 'our allies, which I noted here, hasn't worked either.

http://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-syrian-imbroglio-by-narciso-old.html?view=timeslide

this was back in the varsity days,

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--whelp we saw not defending one's policies, wrought,
people internalized the lie--

Well, that's kinda my point. Certain memes become established and all the attempts to set the record straight just cement the meme more firmly in the collective conscience.

[narciso]

warning you may need a pangalactic gargle blaster after red queen's next step in Dixie,

[Dave (in MA)]

Boutrous-Boutrous Ghali won't be down for-won't be down for breakfast.

[jimmyk]

But do the Rs have the guts to challenge LoLynch in the hearings?

While it was risky (might lead to a preemptive recess appointment), on balance it was smart to announce from the get-go that Obama wasn't going to get his nominee, no matter who it was. The left will still shout "Racism!" but it won't stick so well given that McConnell had already said "No way" before any candidate was proposed.

[Clarice]

Yes, Cecil--that was an unforgivable sin by Bush.

[pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter]

From a politician who has never ever, IMO, Done anything for the good of the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reid-to-gop-for-the-good-of-the-country-stop-your-nakedly-partisan-obstruction/2016/02/15/07f225e8-d42d-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

[PDinDetroit]

Kamala Harris would be a terrible choice, just for the Gun Control issues alone.

[narciso]

I would compare him to Sen. Geary, but he probably did some good

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

LOL, Dave.

[DublinDaveForever]

Man,the things we're gonna do to American Conservatism once we get a Liberal Supreme court.I used to liken Scalia to Frodo Baggins, taking the Liberal ring of Power to Mount doom to destroy it.

Guess what? Frodo didn't make it.

And what's even better is that Hillary Clinton will be nominating the next Supreme court justice.Abortion on tap,the end of the 2nd amendment,free health care for all,Affirmative action EVERYWHERE,equal pay,Voting laws changed to ensure a permanent Democratic majority.......and don't even start on the ugly insidious things we're going to do to Christians......basically the end of Conservative America.

[James D]

Well, that's kinda my point. Certain memes become established and all the attempts to set the record straight just cement the meme more firmly in the collective conscience.

True. So why can't our highly-paid political genuises come up with some memes of our own that stick?

We've certainly had enough possiblities in the last few months that have easy visual and emotional appeal. And yet the R's don't ever seem able to make ANYTHING stick.

[DublinDaveForever]

Although....even if we don't win the Presidency and we do capture the Senate....there is a thin window of opportunity to force the appointment of an Obama nominee.This was being discussed last night at the DNC among some folks......but we all laughed.There's no way we'll need to that.

But just in case.

[narciso]

yes, but her senate campaign is in meltdown, can you say pompeii, so she might appreciate a parachute,

[Comanche Voter]

The only difference between Chuck You Schumer and dog feces is that I can scrape the dog stuff off my foot if I step in it. If you step into Schumer's realm, the stink and the mess never goes away.

[Jeff Dobbs]

jimmyk (last thread):
[Trump]'s still leading in both SC and NV.

Do we have any polling from NV since before the New Year? I don't travel around much looking for polls, but RCP and Huffpo show the last poll there to be Gravis Marketing 12/23-12/27. And before that Huffpo has a Nov one and RCP has an Oct one.

I would chalk NV up to "what have no idea" unless there's something more recent.

[Old Lurker]

Except for Iggy's explanation yesterday about how a narcissist thinks, I still have not heard an explanation why Obama will not do a recess appointment between now and Monday, regardless of what the WH has been saying.

Especially when he is being told he will not get a nominee in through the front door?

Any ideas?

[PDinDetroit]

Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 16, 2016 at 02:23 PM

TC - IMO, Trumps talks about issues in ways the other (R) candidates seem unable to match with any effectiveness. Trump emotes strongly with tone and body language while he is engaged on the issue he is discussing, which people readily relate to. No doubt he has made the other (R) candidates address these issues as well, thorny though they may be. He is able to whip people up into a frenzy this way and to some degree, it ends up being mob rules.

[lyle]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/16/tragedy_and_choices__129669.html

Sowell endorses Cruz.

[Threadkiller]

Should we worry when the press is extra helpful?

On Sunday afternoon, the ConservativeTreeHouse website drew attention to the following: During one of Senator Rubio’s answers at the debate, a graphic flashed on the screen, noting three of Rubio’s (alleged) positions on immigration. No other graphic was shown throughout the entire debate, for any candidate on any issue, save for Rubio on immigration.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/16/3049716/

Mainstream Meme-dia

[jimmyk]

Jeff, I just went to 538, but I didn't drill down to see what it was based on. You're right, it looks like it was based on polling through December, not more recent.

Still, if Trump wins in SC he would have to be trounced in NV to seriously derail his candidacy.

[Threadkiller]

Any ideas?

Considering the latest climate change overreach that flys in the face of the court, maybe Obama is as done with SCOTUS as he is with the feckless Congress.

[Old Lurker]

:-) TK

[Jeff Dobbs]

jimmyk:
Still, if Trump wins in SC he would have to be trounced in NV to seriously derail his candidacy.

No doubt. And even then - being trounced in NV would become a miniscule possibility with a win in SC - and even being trounced would be seen by his supporters as a grand conspiracy by [Nefarious Group to Be Named Later*] to save the establishment's entrenched power.

----------------------
*I'll go with Sheldon Adelson for now.

[Threadkiller]

http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2016/feb/11/whos-polling-well-in-nevada-heres-why-thats-diffic/

[PDinDetroit]

Posted by: Old Lurker | February 16, 2016 at 02:52 PM

It is a possibility that the Obama Administration could make a recess appointment prior to the US Senate getting back to business.

I believe that it could cost the (D)'s some votes though if it were done this way and possibly the 2016 Presidential Race.

BTW - Do you need some turrets out on the ledge? I am pretty sure we can build 'em. :)

[lyle]

Any ideas?

1) IIUC, the recess-appointed judge would only be able to serve through the end of King Putt's term. (Any constitutional scholars here can correct me. Ah, WTF. If Zero can call himself a constitutional scholar, so can lyle.)

So who would want the job for 11 months?

2) 0 will alway--always--opt for the most disruptive, politically divisive ploy, ergo, he wants to bait the spineless Rs into a media-driven, protracted battle of Rs vs. minority woman or tranny to rev up the LIVs and the FSA for a dem win in Nov. Presto. Problem solved.

[Old Lurker]

Turrets would be a nice feature, thanks PD.

[Thomas Collins]

OL, I think Mitch the Man can end the Senate session quickly if Obama goes the recess route. Thus, Deval or Kamala or Loretta would be on the SCOTUS for a few days and not be able to decide any cases.

PD, I agree that Trump whips people up in a way that would allow him to keep getting significant vote totals if he stays in. But as the field narrows, I think he'll start losing consistently.

[Decisions]

"Trump Schedules Competing MSNBC Town Hall Opposite Cruz, Rubio CNN Town Hall"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/02/16/trump-schedules-msnbc-town-hall-opposite-cruz-and-rubios-cnn-town-hall/

[Old Lurker]

Lyle, I think the recess person gets two years, not one from what others have said. But if he thinks he gets nobody, why wouldn't he gum up the works for 11 months or 23 months? A rock throwing lefty might even have an impact of cases this year.

So if Obama believes McTurtle, seems a no-brainier to put his thug in for the time-being.

If he does not believe McTurtle, then what does he know that we don't?

[henry]

So Trump is Townhalling in friendly troofer turf.

[Old Lurker]

OK TC, now that makes sense.

So you are saying that if Holder gets crammed in this week, then Mitch would gavel the present session back in on Monday, then move to end the session the next day, and to commence a brand new session the day after, and that that extinguishes the recess appointment made in the old session?

I wonder if all that can really happen?

[Thomas Collins]

I don't think the recess critter necessarily gets two years, OL. If the session has two years to go, that would be the case. But in this situation, I believe he session ends in about twelve months, and the GOP controlled Senate can end it sooner.

I think DublinDavetheSelfAppointedJOMTroll is right on in this case. Before President-Elect Cruz takes office, if the Dems get at least 50 Senate seats, they could jam through a nominee in January of 2017. Sort of a goodbye present to the USA by Obama, in addition to all the ridiculous pardons he's going to give during that month.

[henry]

OL, Obama needs the fight with McTurtle to stay on TV. otherwise, no one would care what he did.

[DebinNC]

CNN's Anderson Cooper will moderate two live evenings of all six Rs answering SC invitees questions in a townhall setting: "Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will gather in Greenville for Wednesday night's prime-time broadcast. On Thursday, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and John Kasich will appear in Columbia."

[Thomas Collins]

I think your 3:14 PM post describes what will happen, OL. So Obama is in no way being conciliatory by not going the recess route.

[Old Lurker]

Either way, this election is now going to have SCOTUS front and center "for real" this time, and not just as an abstract. Voters are going to want to know exactly what sort of people each person running would name, and then whether he can be trusted to deliver.

That seems to favor Cruz.

[PDinDetroit]

Doesn't the US Senate require consent of the US House of Representatives to go into recess under the current rules?

Not like they wouldn't get it...

[lyle]

If one of our creative, engineer-y JOMers could design and build an energy device that runs on pure cynicism, well, that person wouldn't bother to comment anymore due to an immense stream of filthy lucre pouring in...

Hey, anyone seen DoT lately? :)

[Old Lurker]

I think so, PD. But they would gladly agree.

[lyle]

Doesn't the US Senate require consent of the US House of Representatives to go into recess under the current rules?

I was told there would be no parliamentary quizzes on this blog!

[Old Lurker]

Get serious, Lyle. If one were able to invent that gizmo, why not just go invent a budget that never runs out of OPM. Saves a step.

[PDinDetroit]

Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 16, 2016 at 03:14 PM

TC - couldn't the Senate change the rules so that new senators are not recognized, sworn in, and seated until AFTER a new President has been inaugurated?

Seems like a hole that needs closing anyways...

[NK]

Parliamentary quizzes? Who pays the Senate Parliamentarian?

[Threadkiller]

MSNBC hails a birther!

[PDinDetroit]

I was told there would be no parliamentary quizzes on this blog!

Sorry! Lived and breathed Roberts Rules of Order for quite a few years, so much so that they became ingrained.

[Thomas Collins]

PD, Section 2 of the Twentieth Amendment to the US Constitution states that:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

[lyle]

My bad, OL. I was under the impression that that "budget that never runs out of OPM" gizmo was already up and running.

Anyhoo:

Federalist Paper No. 76 addresses presidential appointments. It mentions no such “right,” but instead “the power of appointment.” It even calls appointments a “duty,” but combined with the “approbation” of the Senate, which the Constitution refers to as “consent.” Writes Federalist 76 author Alexander Hamilton, “The possibility of rejection [of the nominee] would be a strong motive to care in proposing.”

Clearly that Hamilton feller is no match for the "constitutional scholar" residing in the WH some two and a half centuries later...

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/the_left_invents_a_right_for_obama.html#ixzz40MfQAOc1
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[PDinDetroit]

Recess Appointments FAQ

For those who dare to venture in...

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Still, if Trump wins in SC he would have to be trounced in NV to seriously derail his candidacy--

I would think a razor thin win over Cruz or Rubio in SC would be problematic for Trump, after months of double digit leads.

[lyle]

Remember my comment yesterday about skiing with a retired BK atty and his fury with no autopsy on Scalia (or "Skal-ya" as our local dipshit newsreader pronounced it several times last night)? My atty friend cited the big mandatory union dues case in LA as motive enough to off the esteemed jurist. Here's what he was talking about:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/major-case-for-public-unions-already-in-flux-post-scalia/

[jimmyk]

I would think a razor thin win over Cruz or Rubio in SC would be problematic for Trump

Problematic, yes, but to get him to take his toys and stomp out? I don't think so.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Are we talking this kind of turret?

Or this kind?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

How does a congress which has not yet assembled pass a law appointing another day?

[Miss Marple]

lyle,

This is why an autopsy should have been done. I don't care if he had high blood pressure; I assume he was under treatment for that and high BP doesn't necessarily indicate a weakness of the heart.

anonamom would be the one to discuss this. It could be that this is just one of those horrible coincidences but that is why an autopsy should have been done.

We know very little other than the stuff the Daily Mail turned up about his BP and the comments from the guy who owned the ranch. We don't know who else was there, who works on the ranch, nothing.

Just a bunch of oh, well's from everyone.

It's very unsettling.

[jimmyk]

Couldn't the current congress pass a law saying the next congressional session will begin January 21, 2017? Of course Obama would veto it, so it's a moot point.

[Jim Miller]

My one issue is even more specific than Cecil Turner's: For me, it is what a president will do to reduce the chances of nuclear war -- which I believe have increased in recent years, partly because of Obama's mistakes, partly because of long-term trends.

I am not alone in that estimate, by the way. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved their clock closer to zero; more importantly, a group of experts recently made the same point. (As I recall they estimated the chances of nuclear war at 6 percent in the next twenty or thirty years.)

The three leading candidates, Bernie, Donnie, and Hillary, are all unsuitable for the difficult task of making nuclear war less likely.

The sooner we can persuade our fellow citizens that the three are unqualified, the better for the nation -- and the world.

[lyle]

I vote for the lower pic, Ig. Although we might have to consult the structural specs of The Ledge™ before bringing in that kind of firepower...

[Threadkiller]

Please persuade me on how, specifically, Trump is unsuitable for making nuclear war less likely Jim.

I will carry your message if it is convincing.

[NK]

Ig@3:48: always with the negative waves Ignatz.

I ask again, who pays the Senate Parliamentarian?

[Old Lurker]

PD, that paper you linked at 3:33 was helpful.

Two things.

It seems that TC might have been wrong above in that a recess appointment made during an intrasession recess (which is what I think we are in tight now?) gets to serve until the end of the NEXT session, not the current session. That's where the two year window comes from, if true, and the person gets all of 2016 and all of 2017 to do damage.

Second thing. If I am reading it right, the recess appointee can be denied pay until confirmed by the Senate.

[Old Lurker]

I think I misread the section and my point #2 above might not be correct.

[PDinDetroit]

Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 16, 2016 at 03:45 PM

Bigger is usually better, but The Ledge™ is quickly becoming a PLATFORM. And since we have a PLATFORM, we need a CANDIDATE. Wouldn't OL make a fine President? Maybe clarice for Secretary of State? Iggy for Secretary of Defense? TC for Attorney General?

I just want a job as a consultant in the administration please. I accept payment in Mike and Ike candies!

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--I ask again, who pays the Senate Parliamentarian?--

IDK. King George?