Castor and Callen: Beltway Comics





Republican counsel Steve Castor

Showed legally he was no master

When he acted inanely crestfallen

While chatting with Ashley Hurt Callen.

Filed under: impeachment


Leave a comment
  • No wonder Castor was dejected. Callen has been an attorney for various Republican committees and representatives since 2007, and before that she worked for Strom Thurmond and Louie Gohmert. Still, she did not try to engage Daniel Golden in serious cross examination. The most she was able to achieve was to lead Castor through a boring repetition of the testimony he had already given.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I hadn't followed this particular exchange, but saw enough of Republicans violating the usual rules of cross-examination, such as "know what the answer is before asking the question," such as Q: Didn't the aid need certification? A: It got it from the DoD.

    However, having read the proposed Articles Impeachment, the Dem. lawyers don't get any prize from me either.

    The feebly named "abuse of power" article may describe enough facts to constitute extortion (or using the Constitutional term "bribery"). While the described conditioning of an official act on a personal campaign benefit is analogous to Blago's attempted extortion of the Race Track Executive and Construction Executive, the article does not have language analogous to that in Counts 17 and 18 "in violation of Title 18 United States Code secs.1951(a) and 2." Thus, the Bloviator in Chief can and did say "there's no crime here." Nadler provided the opening that it is impeachable for the President to put himself above the country, but if there are real crimes here, the Article should have charged them explicitly. (For instance, the Clinton impeachment charged perjury, although anyone who read the Ken Starr report knew it was about BJs).

    A couple of other related points:
    The obstruction of Congress article is based on stonewalling subpoenas, but one would have thought some contempt of Congress charges would have been brought by now. Which reminds me that nothing here indicates that Congress took up Mueller's suggesting that it was up to Congress to proceed on the obstruction portion of the Mueller Report.

  • In reply to jack:

    I think the articles of impeachment are on solid enough legal foundation. They are the same ones that were to be used against Nixon. As Hamilton said in Federalist 65, the essence of impeachment is "violation of some public trust." I too wish the Muller Report would have been used, but as I said at the time, Barr so thoroughly sabotaged that report that it is now publicly discredited.

    The current articles allow considerable room for evidence of Trump's continuing wrongdoing. And, let's not forget who this impeachment process is directed toward: the November electorate. We know that the Republicans in the Senate will refuse to vote to convict Trump, The goal of the House Democrats must be to show the electorate how dangerous the reelection of this president would be..

  • In reply to jnorto:

    It might be, but I don't think this mush-mouthed reported document is going to move anyone on the margin.Certainly not move anyone in Ohio or Pa.

  • In reply to jack:

    All it takes is to move those educated voters, many Republican, in the suburbs of those swing states.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Maybe, but you have stuff like the Cincinnati suburbs moving into KKK territory and The Big WLW catering to that audience. As usual, the area is gerrymandered, but in favor of Republican House members who are saying there is nothing wrong having been established, and I'm sure will so inform their constituents. This again brings me to the conclusion that articles so entitled are not strong enough to move the needle.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    We know? Do we know all the testimony, really? And you're so right about continuing wrongdoing -- they'll be ready to pounce.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    The only evidence that will become constitutionally relevant is what the House managers report to the Senate. If you are talking about for an individual to decide (again in the context of how to vote in 2020), I doubt that too many have sat through the various network preemptions for the hearings and tied together the various conspiracies. The preemptions must be costing CNN and FNC a lot of ad revenue, though.

  • In reply to jack:

    No one has to sit through all of the hearings to learn the evidence of wrongdoing. It is being repeated in every newspaper and news broadcast around the nation, either as direct news about the Intelligence Committee report or as news of the Judiciary Committee's review of articles of impeachment. Only those who choose to will be ignorant.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    1. As noted above, CNN and FNC, and to a lesser extent the mainstream networks (to use a MS phrase) wasted a whole lot of advertising revenue.
    2. And there are those who hang out at Mallard Fillmore, Rectumbook conspiracy groups,. Newsmaxx, iHeart and Cumulus news talk stations, and similar places, who may be willfully ignorant, but are buying all their garbage. There seems to be some reason why Republican committee members have big posters that are mostly off camera on the mainstream network news.
    3. I was replying to MS's post, which I took to be about actual evidence, much of which the coconspirators in the Administration have refused to turn over. For instance, Bolton said he was willing to talk, but never did.

  • What Trump has done in soliciting foreign countries to influence our elections in his behalf---past and future---is precisely why the writers of the Constitution gave the people's House the power of impeachment. I agree that in order to protect the 2020 election the Democrats in the House had no choice but to pursue the course of impeachment. Not to do so, when faced with such a clear and present danger to our system of government, would have been an abdication of their Constitutional duty.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Amen, my friend. This business of "not so close to the election" is beside the point. The danger needs to be exposed.

Leave a comment