1. A cultural note: there is no discernible Easter programming anywhere on TV, cable or network. Oh, TCM is playing “Easter Parade” and “King of Kings” in prime time, but that’s it. ‘Twas not always thus.
2. Speaking of TCM…Bravo for the classic movie network’s teaming with Fandango to offer big screen presentations of John Wayne’s “True Grit” in May. They could have justifiably chosen many other Westerns equally worthy or more so, like “Shane” or “High Noon.” I like to think that choosing the Duke’s Oscar winning performance is an intentional rebuke to the recent attack on Wayne’s legacy by the social media mob, a true “Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!” to the cultural airbrushers and statue-topplers.
I’ll be there, cheering Rooster on.
3. Other than journalists, have any other professionals debased themselves and their professional integrity more flagrantly that lawyers and law professors in their determination to Get Trump? This article in Slate by a law professor argues that asking or telling one’s lawyer to do something that the lawyer refuses to do—like firing Robert Mueller—can be criminal obstruction of justice. By this theory, every time a client says that he wants the lawyer to assist in an illegal act, it’s a crime. But that’s not how attorney-client relationships work. The attorney is obligated to say, when appropriate, “No, you can’t do that, and I won’t do that for you, and here’s why.” In the end, it is indistinguishable from the client asking the lawyer’s advice, because clients only have the power to order a lawyer to do a very limited number of things, like accepting a settlement.
The professor’s argument also assumes that Trump firing Mueller would be obstruction of justice. Not only is this unprovable—that would have to be his intent—the President had a perfectly good reason to fire the special counsel, just as he had good reason to fire James Comey. Mueller’s investigation had been tainted many ways, and since Trump knew he was innocent, he saw the exercise as a calculated scheme to make it impossible for him to do his job. Firing Mueller and ending the investigation would have been really, really stupid politically, but it wouldn’t be obstruction.
This, however, is how desperate “the resistance” is to bootstrap some kind of impeachment theory.
4. Shouldn’t college students have learned the definition of “safe”? At a “town meeting,” George Mason University’s president and other administrators had to listen to this idiocy from students protesting the hiring of Justice Kavanaugh for a part-time teaching gig in Great Britain: “In hiring Kavanaugh, to what extent did you consider the mental health of the survivors on campus and how that might affect them and their education?” one male student asked. Boy, would I be a lousy university president. I would have answered, “If any student here has her mental health damaged because a Supreme Court Justice is teaching a course across the Atlantic, and a politically motivated accuser tried to derail his nomination with a 30-year-old, unsubstantiated, recovered memory of alleged misconduct when he was in high school, then that student’s education is already at risk, because that student has lost touch with reality.”
Instead, the University refused to engage with the protesters, simply listening and saying, in essence, ‘We acknowledge your concerns, but our decision stands.’
5. Stop making me defend Eric Swalwell! Or, if you like, “Stop making me defend facile anti-gun fanatic single- issue Presidential candidates with as much chance at being elected as my dog.” NRA spokesperson and right-wing commentator Dana Loesch challenged Rep. Swalwell to a Second Amendment debate, and he tweeted that he wouldn’t debate a “mouthpiece. I don’t aim down, so I don’t debate mouthpieces. But send me your president, Oliver North. I’ll debate him anywhere.”
Loesch then pulled the gender card pulled the gender card. “Your response is pretty sexist — you’ll debate a man but not me, a woman, got it. I’m a mom and a lifetime member,” she wrote. Naturally, other feminists piled on via social media.
No, Swalwell’s tweet wasn’t sexist at all. Loesch is a mouthpiece, and Swalwell is completely within fair political practice to insist on debating the NRA’s head rather than his surrogate. He would have had the same response if Loesch were a male.
Conservatives can’t complain about progressives using cheap accusations of racism and sexism to deflect criticism if they do it themselves.
I must also point out that Loesch is a poor gun advocate, and I suspect chosen for the role more for her pulchritude than her skills at advocacy. North is a much tougher adversary . I will give Dana kudos for tweeting to Swalwell, “I’m your huckleberry,” a clever reference to another fine Western.