Has Mitch McConnell Killed Irony?

He certainly has breathed new life into the demonstration of hypocrisy….

Example #1: Readers of this blog need not be reminded that McConnell absolutely refused to even consider a  sitting President’s Supreme Court nominee –an unprecedented assault on constitutional norms. And yet, when Chuck Schumer threatened to return the favor (albeit with a caveat: the Democrats would not stonewall a moderate candidate, only a radical one), he proclaimed that “the American public” wouldn’t stand for such dastardly behavior.

Um…any mirrors in your house, Mitch?

Example #2: The Senate is preparing to schedule hearings on Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. However, a number of them have not turned in the documentation required for the FBI’s background check, and the Office of Government Ethics has raised objections to the speed with which McConnell wants to proceed. (He is “pooh poohing” the Office’s insistence on complete documentation prior to going forward with the hearings.)

This sudden desire to accommodate a President-Elect is especially interesting in light of  a letter McConnell wrote to Harry Reid prior to hearings on President Obama’s nominees. In that letter–which recently surfaced–McConnell set out a list of demands that absolutely had to be met prior to the Senate giving any consideration to those nominees.

McConnell wrote that “we expect the following standards will be met:

  1. The FBI background check is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review prior to a hearing being noticed.
  2. The Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a committee hearing.
  3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the committee prior to a hearing being noticed.
  4. All committee questionnaires are complete and have been returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior to a committee vote.
  5. The nominee is willing to have committee staff interviews, where that has been the practice.
  6. The nominee has had a hearing.
  7. The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when requested.
  8. The nominee has committed to cooperate with the Ranking Member on requests for information and transparency.

There’s more, but you get the idea.

Now, I really have no objection to any of these requirements; I think they are appropriate. Evidently, Mitch McConnell (aka “turtle man”) also thought they were appropriate–when the nominations were being made by a Democratic President.

Suddenly, they are no longer necessary safeguards to protect American citizens from malfeasance or worse. (I’m sure the fact that McConnell’s wife is one of those nominees has nothing to do with this 180 degree change…)

How does this disgusting excuse for a human being sleep at night?


  1. Goodbye to hope and change for at least four years. Dark days ahead. This gang of thugs brings a whole new version of the Know-Nothing Party.

  2. TREASON [Conspiracy to commit treason]
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s nation or sovereign. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor. Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

    At times, the term “traitor” has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term “traitor” is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message. Treason is considered to be different and on many occasions a separate charge from ‘Treasonable Felony’ in many parts of the world.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Conspiracy against rights is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 241:

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person […] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  4. Conspiracy
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    Types of conspiracies

    Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between people to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights or to gain an unfair advantage
    Conspiracy (criminal), an agreement between people to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
    Conspiracy (political), an agreement between people with the goal of gaining political power or meeting a political objective
    Hub-and-spoke conspiracy, a conspiracy in which one or more principal conspirators (the “hub”) enter into several similar agreements with others (the “spokes”) who know concerted action is contemplated, usually where the success of the concerted action depends on the participation of the other spokes

  5. From the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University:

    Prima facie [case]

    Latin for “at first sight.” Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;” e.g., prima facie evidence. It may also be used as an adverb meaning “on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information;” e.g., the agreement is prima facie valid.

    A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. It is generally understood as a flexible evidentiary standard that measures the effect of evidence as meeting, or tending to meet, the proponent’s burden of proof on a given issue. In that sense, a prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party’s evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.

    See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); Hernandez v. New York, 500 US 352

  6. From About.com:

    Impeachable Offenses

    Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Well, that’s up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to constitutional lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are (1) real criminality — breaking a law; (2) ABUSES OF POWER (3) ” VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST”as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

    Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.

    Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

    Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

  7. I am so angry! There is but a brief window in which we can hold climate change where it is, but Trump and his nominees all deny climate change. They don’t care whether it will damage the earth so long as they drain every drop of oil from it. No ERA regulations! No minimum wage! No Social Security! No Medicare or Medicaid! No ACA! No Planned Parenthood! No abortions! No public schools! No civil rights regulations! It’s back to the ’50s, everyone!

  8. BSH,

    I’m in the process of preparing the multiple charges for the impeachment. They mount up on a daily basis. Take a look at http://www.TheAlarmReport.info. Look again at http://www.Impeachment.website in a few days. It will be a similar undertaking.

    The Alarm Report was used to defeat the same forces we are facing now, the last time they attempted their coup. It has taken them over a generation to try again. They were in a much more favorable position back in 1991 to accomplish their mission. According to the BBC, George Bush’s grandfather was involved in the aborted fascist coup attempted back in 1935. This is nothing new.

    That’s the reason for “The Chamber” by John Grisham http://www.KillingtheMessenger.info. He’s a personal friend of the Bush family. They lost their battle in Dallas in 1991 to the four of us. One of the four was Roger Staubach, a Republican. And they knew that I might attempt to prevent their next move when they became aware of the essay my companion and I published in 1993. See http://www.Democracide.info.

    Their big problem is that their future plans were disclosed by my testimony during a closed session of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission convened in Jacksonville in 1992. They aren’t fooling everyone. That’s for sure. They were too late. The coded threats in “The Chamber” which were directed at me weren’t published until 1995.

Comments are closed.