[guest post by JVW]

. . . quite like whiny Dog Trainer op-ed writer feminism.

– JVW

They didn’t say that in so many words, mind you. But that’s what they said.

This is your big vindication:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know “for sure” whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president’s wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson.

“He said he’ll have to get all the documents he requested from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows for sure,” a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday. Nunes was a member of the Trump transition team executive committee.

So the incidental collection of material relating to Trump’s team didn’t even necessarily involve any communications in which Trump’s team took part. In other words, for all this sh[vowel deleted]thead Nunes knows, the Big Reveal is people talking about Trump or members of his team?

Are you kidding me? This is what this clown held a press conference about?

Trumpalos

TRUMP VINDICATED!!!1!ELEVENTY!!!!11! NO TAKEBACKS ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST LAWYERS PARSING WORDS

/Trumpalos

If anyone here is vindicated, it’s me — since I warned people yesterday afternoon that Nunes appeared to be contradicting himself all over the place and was not inspiring confidence.

"I guess" does not inspire confidence, but plenty will seize on this like it's gospel because of course they will. https://t.co/GhllP96iga

— Patterico (@Patterico) March 22, 2017

Yeah, I'd advise caution in reading too much into his comments, but I expect many to ignore that advice. https://t.co/x4bJEScVvj

— Patterico (@Patterico) March 22, 2017

I’m willing to believe there was scandalous behavior on the part of many intelligence officials. That is a separate question from the idiot Donald Trump being even close to right about anything. Please keep claiming he was, Trumpalos. I enjoy watching you beclown yourselves.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

On a day when Donald Trump is trying to get the House to pass TrumpCare (I hope he fails, by the way) and the Senate’s business is overshadowed by the Gorsuch hearings, we have a new interview in which Trump plays the jackass. And nowhere is his jackassery more on display than in this comment:

But you would agree also that some of the things you have said haven’t been true. You say that Ted Cruz’s father was with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Well that was in a newspaper. No, no, I like Ted Cruz, he’s a friend of mine. But that was in the newspaper. I wasn’t, I didn’t say that. I was referring to a newspaper. A Ted Cruz article referred to a newspaper story with, had a picture of Ted Cruz, his father, and Lee Harvey Oswald, having breakfast.

That gets close to the heart…

Why do you say that I have to apologize? I’m just quoting the newspaper, just like I quoted the judge the other day, Judge Napolitano, I quoted Judge Napolitano, just like I quoted Bret Baier, I mean Bret Baier mentioned the word wiretap. Now he can now deny it, or whatever he is doing, you know. But I watched Bret Baier, and he used that term. I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano, and he said that three sources have told him things that would make me right. I don’t know where he has gone with it since then. But I’m quoting highly respected people from highly respected television networks.

This is why it’s difficult for me to get that upset if there’s a bogus story about Trump in a newspaper or on TV. I still criticize such stories, out of a sense of intellectual honesty, but I don’t feel the same fervor that I feel when almost any other Republican is unfairly attacked. Because that’s the standard he sets: If it appears in some media outlet or even blog and it benefits me, I quote it. No matter how bogus the story obviously is, I quote it. And I never apologize, even if the story was clearly wrong.

That’s the standard you want to set? OK. Live by the bogus story, die by the bogus story.

I won’t feel sorry for you.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

[guest post by Dana]

This morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer announced that he’s a “no” on Judge Gorsuch:

Reminding us of that this is yet more partisan hypocrisy, here’s what Sen. Schumer had to say back in January when the Senate Republicans exercised their prerogative not to give President Obama’s nominee a hearing:

“The Supreme Court handles ‘the people’s business,’ as President Reagan put it. Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people’s business is not getting done.”

Sen. Schumer’s grandstanding notwithstanding, Allahpundit points out:

In this year of all years, with the left pushing Schumer to filibuster Gorsuch on principle to avenge Merrick Garland’s honor or whatever, Gorsuch should want to present himself as being as unobjectionable as humanly possible. That way, if Schumer filibusters anyway, McConnell can nuke the filibuster with little political problem: Judge Gorsuch is eminently qualified, he’ll say (correctly), he gave not a single answer at his hearing that would disqualify him from this position (also correct), therefore Schumer’s obstruction is petulant and illegitimate and deserves to be overridden with brute force.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana