Levin on Impeachment Hearings

By Pie Guevara

Pie Guevara appears in Post Scripts courtesy of Jack Lee and Tina Grazier. Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton.  So there!

 

Mark Levin: Best selling author, radio talk show host, Fox News host of “Life, Liberty & Levin” (a show I dearly love) and Constitutional scholar. It is my understanding that as a lawyer he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court more than once and won. (But my memory fades and no, I cannot name the cases and I haven’t been able to find a citation online.)

Here is a link to what Levin had to say on Wednesday night. Watch it. Watch it again. Watch it a week from now. Watch it a month from now.

Levin on Impeachment

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Levin on Impeachment Hearings

  1. Chris says:

    I can find no evidence of Levin having ever argued in front of the Supreme Court. It isn’t even on his Wikipedia page. You have him confused with someone else.

    As for Levin’s argument in that Sean Hannity clip, it’s about at the standard one would expect from someone speaking on Sean Hannity. He begins with pure ad hominem, and then misrepresents the law, falsely claiming that the whistleblower is not protected by whistleblower law, and that the impeachment process can’t provide him anonymity. None of these things are true despite how loudly Levin chooses to yell them. How can you find this loud ranting persuasive? When you watched V for Vendetta, did you root for Lewis Prothero?

    https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/11/mark-levin/fact-checking-claims-about-whistleblowers-legal-te/

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Wikipedia. The complete and unerring source for all knowledge and biographical material. I have a feeling Mr. Souza heavily depends on it. Small matter. I often go there first myself.

  2. Pie Guevara says:

    Mr. Souza wears many hats. Now he is and expert on the law.

    Oh wait, my bad, that is incorrect. He merely apes and cites a political opinion page that touts itself as a “fact” checker.

    Regarding V. After I watched it all I thought was —

    1) That was a really crappy and tedious cartoon.
    2) I’ll never get that 2 hours back.
    3) No wonder progressive millennial twits love it and wear that stupid mask to protests.
    4) I should have watched “The African Queen” for the 100th time again instead.

    • Chris says:

      Politifact is fair and meticulous, and has even awarded “Lie of the Year” to Democrats, including former President Obama. It deserves an actual rebuttal to the facts it outlines, not snide mockery.

      If you disagree, you are welcome to cite your own fact-checkers and explain why they are more reliable.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Re Mr. Souza’s remarkable “you are welcome to cite your own fact-checkers and explain why they are more reliable.”

        I am welcome??? Who is welcomed to this blog? Who writes here and who is the internet troll who has been welcome to comment?

        Nevertheless, I fall into the James Taranto school regarding “fact check” opinion pages despite that a “Lie of the Year” was awarded, unavoidably, to Obama.

        Why am I bothering to answer Mr. Souza, an internet troll who uses the Post Scripts comment section to vent his spleen, insult and parade about? Perhaps he should give a link to his own blog that no one reads. He may even allow comments from trolls like himself.

        No more. Mr. Souza is dismissed. I would rather spend my time on other things.

        I have trashed other of his comments today as they fall under the usual Souza troll/insult/pompous ass pattern and have no other value. I am beginning to think a month or two sans Souza is in order. As a sort of holiday treat for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year celebrations. Let him stew in his own juices.

  3. Joe says:

    The Sousa phone will belch out a sour tune over this one…

    https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=60930

    • Chris says:

      Well, yes. The headline compares the actual Russian military invasion of Ukraine to…individual people coming here to live and work. That would make a thinking person rather sour. It would also make one wonder why that site, and Tucker Carlson, and Donald Trump for that matter, are so willing to push Russian propaganda designed to exonerate the country’s invasion of Ukraine. Do you feel good about helping them do that?

  4. Tina says:

    Chris’s point is mute. The whistle blower has already been exposed, which is why he’s not the star witness in this partisan show trial. Instead we’re given hearsay testimony and water cooler gossip.

    The Democrat Party has completely destroyed all pretense of credibility.

    • Chris says:

      Surely you mean my point is “moot.” (Or “moo,” if you’re Joey Tribbiani.) The whistleblower has not testified because they are still supposed to be anonymous, not because they’ve been “exposed.” But if you want people closer to the situation to testify, why don’t you demand that Trump stop ordering people to refuse to comply with subpoenas?

      • Tina says:

        Yes…old brain not quite in gear.

        “…because they are still supposed to be anonymous”

        They are protected. They are not “supposed to be” anonymous. He was outed by the left. It’s ridiculous that he wasn’t the star witness.

        “…why don’t you demand that Trump stop ordering people to refuse to comply with subpoenas?

        I agree with Trump. The secret inquiry was bogus. The open inquiry is still just a fishing expedition and show trial…purely political. There is no legal ground to stand upon.

        Surely you don’t support proceedings that deny equal rights and protections to the accused?

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Fun fact —

          “Moot” is one of those words that changed meaning. Today it means having no practical use or meaning, insubstantial, an irrelevant argument and therefore not worth discussing. (Mr. Souza is a champion of that.) It once meant a relevant argument, discussion or proceeding formally before a medieval England court or government council.

        • Chris says:

          He was outed by the left.

          Can you explain what you mean here? This is the first time I’ve heard that claim.

          It’s ridiculous that he wasn’t the star witness.

          Why? Was it ridiculous that “Deep Throat” did not testify in the Watergate hearings? The other witnesses have all corroborated the whistleblower’s claims that Trump traded military aid and meetings for a public investigation into Joe Biden. Focusing on the whistleblower is a distraction because Republicans cannot successfully rebut or defend that fact.

          Surely you don’t support proceedings that deny equal rights and protections to the accused?

          These hearings do no such thing. This is not a trial, this is an investigation. It is more similar to a grand jury hearing, in which the accused do not have any right to present evidence for their defense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *