Tuesday Open Thread

Donald Trump's lawyers are a snooze. Listening to disjointed Sekolow is like listening to talk radio. Yesterday the lawyer I was listening to in the car who talked about the legal intent of the impeachment clause of the Constitution was very articulate but I thought his citing of the Federalist papers and quotes were selective and didn't paint a fair picture. He kept saying the House didn't give Trump a chance to fight the subpoenas in court before jumping to impeachment. Wasn't it Donald Trump's responsibility to go to court and seek to quash the subpoenas on privilege grounds? Did he do that? (I don't know the answer but I don't remember reading about a legal challenge).

Also, the lawyer kept repeating the equivalent of "good faith reliance upon advice of counsel" as a defense for Trump. Is that a defense to abuse of power? In criminal cases, that defense is usually limited to specific rather than general intent crimes (willfully vs knowingly). I don't see the willful intent in abuse of power (as opposed to obstruction of Congress by disobeying subpoenas but I'm following this sporadically so I may have missed something.

Trump lawyer Pam Bondi's attempts to smear the Bidens will likely only work with diehard Trump supporters who are already conspiracy theorists. But I still don't want Biden to be the nominee based on his horrendous 25 year record on crime legislation. (Bill Clinton has at least admitted the 1994 crime bill was a mistake.) [More...]

And anyone listening to Trump lawyer Jane Raskin would have assumed it was Rudy on trial, not Donald, given the amount of her time she spent defending Rudy. If Rudy did nothing wrong, then Trump wasn't relying on Rudy's advice when Trump did something wrong. Hardly a good argument in my view.

To me, Team Trump's miscasting of the Bidens as the transgressors is a transparent ploy to aid his re-election campaign.

Anyway, now they will argue about witnesses. I highly doubt Trump is not getting impeached. Republicans are afraid of their own shadows and won't cross party lines. Yes, Trump's under-informed base, unsurprisingly, still loves him. But I doubt there will be as many of them in 2020 as there were in 2016, especially if his campaign stays within legal limits on social media ads and doesn't plant false stuff But we do need a nominee who can excite Democrats. Biden? Hardly. Sanders or Warren? Maybe. Someone new stepping in? Wouldn't that be nice, especially if he or she is under 70.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.
< Donald Trump's Staged Peace Plan Announcement | Superbowl Time: Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And the walls come tumbling down (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    Trump's `Very Powerful' Border Wall Partially Collapses On Mexico's Side

    A newly constructed section of President Donald Trump's prized wall in Calexico, California toppled over into Mexicali, Mexico due to strong gusts of wind on Wednesday.
    The latest incident isn't the only time Trump's "very powerful wall" has signaled more fragility than the President has let on: smugglers have been breaking through the wall using simple power tools and makeshift ladders.

    TPM link (sorry been awhile trouble getting TL link function)

    Gotta love it. It would be real, real funny if we weren't wasting a lotta money that could be better spent elsewhere.

    It is such (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    a statement on the entire Trump presidency it seems. Just throw garbage out there and hope it works.

    You know the old adage (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Garbage is probably the nicest thing I've said about him and his administration.


    Bloomberg is not my top choice. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:07:47 AM EST
    Not even in the top 5. However, I do like some of the commercials he's running on TV in PA. He is going straight for orange jesus. He doing what I have said the Dems need to do everyday. Point that orange jesus is NOT a successful businessman. Not a billionaire. He is a con man and a liar.

    I will certainly take Bloomberg over Bernie or Biden.

    Pretty much exactly how I came to it (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:31:33 AM EST
    On another subject

    I can't stand the bobble head blather about "oh mother Mary how could Alexander doooo this!?

    He was a "statesman".  He was an "institutionalist" what ever the f'ck that means.

    Read the link in this upthread comment and you will understand why he did it.  And why Murkoski will probably also do it.

    Just Security (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 08:41:53 AM EST

    In a nutshell, if Bolton - or probably anyone else - had been called to testify Trump would have been forced to claim privilege.  That could not happen NOT because he would have lost which was almost certain but because if he had a court would likely have been forced to look into the whole drug deal and decide if Trump, or anyone else, broke the law.  

    Imagine a world where in the middle of this a court says actually crimes were committed.  Which of course they were.  And here's the important part

    Not just by Trump but also by a currently unknown number of elected republicans.

    Nothing that could or will happen as a result of the craven acquittal would even compare to the implications of that.

    It simply could not be allowed.  As the saying goes "it's a big shi+ sandwich and they all had to take a bite"

    Losing in November is better than going to jail.


    There (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    is only one question left for all the Republicans.

    What are you wearing for the coronation?


    You could make an argument (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 09:40:18 AM EST
    No witnesses is politically better for us than hearing a parade of witnesses and then acquitting him.

    I was never convinced Bolton would have been the savior some were expecting.

    Now it just looks like a straight up whitewash coverup.  Much easier to include in attack ads.


    The Bernie Bros (none / 0) (#108)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 05:11:03 PM EST
    were convinced the DNC/Clinton stole the nomination from Sanders by stacking the conventions.

    The Ghost of Conventions Past returns.  If Sanders is not the dem's nominee 2020 looks to be a rerun of 2016.


    I (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    know the Bro's are easily triggered by DNC and it's in their DNA to yell rigged at any perceived slight, but this makes little sense.

    If anybody has a beef it would be Biden, Klobuchar and Mayor Pete who are in the centrist lane that Bloomberg wants to purchase.

    In the short run at least, this would help Bernie, a lot IMO.


    I have to differ (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 07:58:01 AM EST
    This is literally about Bernie IMO

    Bloomberg has basically said he would be fine with Biden or another centrist candidate but was literally running to stop the Bernie/Warren wing of the party from committing political suicide.

    If it come to it and it's looking more and more like it will the Bernie/Mike battle will make Bernie/Hillary thing look like a skirmish.  Because Bloomberg is not (I think) above using Bernie's own tactics against him.  And showing him new ones.

    Imagine how that will go over.

    Shorter version, if Bernie really is in the lead this is totally now about Bernie.  

    On the anecdotal upside yesterday I ran into a Bernie bro from way back at the supermarket.  He was a fanatic last time and still is so I was almost afraid to mention Bloomberg.

    He said he thought he was an interesting guy and we might just need him to win.  So there's that.


    Tho I do agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    I might help him in the short run.  Like I said before it might even be the reason he is surging.

    The (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    short run is hugely important. It was always going to be Bernie (or Warren) against Biden (or some other centrist). Maybe the Bro's are most afraid of Bloomberg in the end but for now anything that reduces Biden's support keeps him near the top or
    even leading the polls. Any campaign would kill for that advantage at this moment.

    Judging by the polls I would say that Bernie's surge is mostly at the expense of Warren's slide and the fact that is loyal base is becoming more energized  as the election gets closer.



    Well yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 09:22:25 AM EST
    The short run is very important.  Especially for the first 4 contests.  Which Bloomberg is skipping.  

    Look, I know my imagination is fevered.  It's my best feature.  But seriously you have to look at events unfolding exactly in the way practically everyone agreed they would need to for Bloomberg to step in in a big way.  While CNN and others run stories like "Why the f'ck is Sanders surging?  Can ANYONE tell us?" and not consider there might be some behind the scenes GOTV efforts for Bernie that are not funded by Bernie.

    I think the virtual implosion of Biden might be driving this.  As much as other things.

    It's true it will be ugly.  Couple of things.  It's already going to be so f'ing ugly, like, historically ugly, it will be far less noticeable
    Second, I think, because I know some, not all Bernie Bros are vacuous azzholes who would be happy to burn the country down if they don't get their way.

    Some are.  Not enough to be that concerned about it by my count.  We have much bigger problems.  I think in the end almost everyone will see that.


    There (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    is no implosion for Biden, he has been polling in the mid to upper 20's for months now. He had his high in the low 40's when he first jumped into the race and ever since it's been a slow and steady reversion to mean. Not at all unexpected by many people.

    I don't think is getting any outside help, at least not money, he's got plenty of that. Any ratfkery that takes place will be certain to take place on line where GOP and Russian trolls will find perfect cover among the bros to spread the poison.


    I wasn't really talking about polls (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    Biden has imploded because of his nonresponse to Ukraine.  He has nothing to say about it.  That's not sustainable.  

    We will see soon.  If Biden loses the first two I don't think SC will save him.   Not predicting that.  I think its entirely unpredictable

    As far as ratf'kery its not much discussed but worth mentioning Bloomberg is building a massive digital operation.  Hawkfish

    The Russian bots will not have the field to them selves.


    I (none / 0) (#137)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    still don't see a implosion just the slow steady degradation of is support precisely because of this latest example of Joe being Joe, always relying on some imaginary "reasonableness" from Republicans or the voters for that matter.

    I see this episode more of a blown opportunity that will dog him for the duration rather than a implosion causing blunder.


    If you believe this (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 07:31:09 AM EST
    It's seems likely you might be happy to see that happen.  

    Or maybe you are just trying to stir shi+ up.  I get it.  I do that too.

    I said this before but it's worth repeating, other than beating Trump and his followers I can't think of anything I would love more than beating Bernie and especially his followers.   Trust me when I tell you I am not alone in this.

    So here's the bottom line as I see it at this point.

    Sanders can't win.  The "bros" are gonna bro.  You are correct.  That is predictable.  To beat them and Trump we are going to need lots and lots of money and smarts.  I'm happy to hear any thoughts on who ELSE provides that.  By November

    But still, thank you for your concern.


    Capt. you have known me long enough (none / 0) (#140)
    by ragebot on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    to know nothing in politics makes me happy.

    As I have often posted Trump is a loud mouthed braggart who treats women as disposable and BSesses way too much with statements that stretch reality.

    As for who else could step in there is an interesting article on The Hill site speculating Hillary Clinton may be interested in the VP slot.  It points she still has one of the best machines around and access to big bucks donors.  Not to mention Bill Clinton is still reputed to have a keen political mind.

    You are not alone in disliking the Bernie Bros, and I do believe you when you say it.  The thing is while I doubt they are numerous enough to push Sanders over the top they do have enough numbers to dent turnout for any dem they think has dissed Sanders.

    I am still convinced both Trump and Sanders have an advantage over any candidate in terms of what you see is what you get.  No one else running for prez can claim that.  John Kerry's famous "I was against it before I was for it' line can be applied to just about every one else.  To some extent this also includes Trump; but Trump's strength is that his actions like appointing judges and eliminating agency rules are really what his supporters like him for.  Truth be told most of his supporters view much of what he says as going in one ear and out the other; they concentrate on what he does.

    Bloomberg has so far not been put under a microscope.  He has not released his tax returns which will no doubt at least raise conflict of interest issues.  He has lots of non disclosure agreements with women who worked for him.  There is always 'stop and frisk' as well.  Not to mention how his news outlets have restrictions on what they can and can not report.  I am reminded of the old ditty about LBJ's dark side; 'it is like the back side of the moon, everyone knew it was there, they just did not know there was so much of it'.  

    One of the biggest current gripes about Bloomberg is that while he is active all over the place he does not seem to make himself available for Q&As after his speeches.  Once microscope is put on him I suspect he may be brought down to earth.


    Time (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    Will tell

    We're (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    all aware of the fact that the GOP is pushing Sanders and you're carrying water for the Kremlin dude. There was no rigging but that was what was being pushed by Putin and you fell for the Russian propaganda.

    Anyone here (none / 0) (#110)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    knows I am no Sanders fanboy.  But I have to point out his fundraising and polling numbers are not due to the GOP's actions.  There is a lot of not only wide spread but intense support for Sanders.  There is also the history of the Bernie Bros feeling dissed by the DNC/Clinton; some folks think to the extent that their failure to support Clinton cost her the election.

    It appears you did not read the article I linked to.  It is clear the DNC made a decision to change the criteria of getting into the debates so Bloomberg would qualify.  Again this was a DNC decision; not something the GOP forced the DNC to do.  So once again the Bernie Bros can claim the DNC put it's fingers on the scale to favor one candidate at Sanders' expense.

    As Yogi said 'It's like déjà vu all over again,.


    You're (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 06:41:25 PM EST
    being a useful idiot for the Kremlin with their "Bernie is a victim" propaganda. People being concerned about Bernie being able to win a general election is not "rigging". Polling is showing him losing state after state. And people are going to discuss this legitimate concern.

    How is allowing Bloomberg into the debates "rigging" it against Bernie? That's completely ridiculous simply because Bernie is terrible at debates and they do not help him one bit. The Bros are about nothing about grievances and even if Bernie lost every primary and caucus they would still claim it was "rigged". If these idiots knew what they were talking about and understood primaries they would know that Perez made the primaries more favorable to Bernie caving into the idiotic bros. But it's not like you're really concerned about all this being a Trumper and all.


    I am sure your post (none / 0) (#114)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    will convince the Bernie Bros to vote for Bloomberg.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 07:47:08 PM EST
    cares about them. I guess you don't realize that almost all their candidates lost in 2018 and yet we took the house. They are not important to winning because we have shown we can win without them. We're not going to coddle them like you guys coddle the tea monsters.

    Loosening debate restrictions opens up the money tap to a lot of other candidates. Bernie has been burning through money like crazy but of course none of the regular money funders are going to help Bernie.


    Problem is (2.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ragebot on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    the dems that took the house ran as middle of the road pols who could work with pubs.  Lots of them are facing head winds about voting for impeachment instead of getting bills passed.

    My guess is that the dems still retain the House, but will lose seats.


    WOW (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by jmacWA on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    The house has passed plenty of bills... they stop at the feet of MoscowMitch

    "voting for impeachment instead of (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    passing legislation"/ "do-nothing Congress" are classic gaslighting Republican talking points, oft repeated but utterly contrary to fact and arch-typically blaming the Democrats for the Republicans' own behavior.

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    no, they didn't run on working with Republicans. What they did run on were issues like the GOP voted to take your health care away and holding Trump accountable. As far as impeachment, the GOP was running on that in 2018 too and it didn't work. People who did not vote for impeachment are the ones that are going to be trouble in November and that is why Mitch was telling the senators to vote no on witnesses because "nobody was going to remember". When you have 75% of the country wanting something and then a party that completely panders to the 25% of the country it's not gonna be good for the GOP.  The odds of the house going back to the GOP in November are pretty much zero at this point. Actually there are still a few seats to flip that almost flipped in 2018. Look for the GOP to lose the 7th district in GA in November and possibly another suburban district. Any suburb district the GOP holds right now is in danger of flipping. There are very few rural districts to flip red so I don't see losing seats there.

    Have you seen this ad? (none / 0) (#122)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:55:14 PM EST
    The only purpose it serves is to troll Tr*mp!  Vainglorious Tr*mp is going to absolutely hate it, knowing that we are all laughing at those pictures of his chunky self on the golf course.

    I agreed with the above comment (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 06:50:44 AM EST
    That he was not my first second or third choice.

    But I have to admit, he's growing on me.


    The hater's guide to (none / 0) (#133)
    by leap on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    Ha yeah (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    The thing is the haters are almost exclusively the only ones who have written about him for months and months and he just keeps rising.

    I wish them luck


    That guy Drew Magary (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    Is a "humorist" who also did a Haters Guide to Bernie Sanders

    And probably others.  I didn't search farther.


    Oh, (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 08:34:38 AM EST
    that ad is hilarious. Probably one of the reasons why Trump was rage tweeting about Blooomberg the other day. He included Steyer but I guess with Steyer it was because he has more money.

    2 from Political Wire (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    Bloomberg Proposes $5 Trillion in Taxes on the Rich

    February 1, 2020 at 1:04 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 222 Comments

    "Michael Bloomberg unveiled a plan on Saturday that would raise an estimated $5 trillion in new tax revenue from high earners and corporations, a proposal that would almost certainly raise his personal tax bill but is less aggressive than those from his most liberal rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination," the New York Times reports.

    "The proposal includes a repeal of President Trump's 2017 tax cuts for high earners, along with a new 5 percent `surcharge' on incomes above $5 million per year. It would raise capital gains taxes for Americans earning more than $1 million a year and maintain a limit on federal deductions of state and local tax payments set under the 2017 law, which some Democrats have pushed to eliminate."

    Wall Street Journal: "Bloomberg's tax policies would place him in the middle of the pack of his rivals for the Democratic nomination."

    O'Rourke Praises Michael Bloomberg

    February 1, 2020 at 10:41 am EST By Taegan Goddard 327 Comments

    Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D- TX) praised Michael Bloomberg in the Los Angeles Times:

    "I like that he is here. I strongly believe we have a chance to deliver the state's 38 electoral college votes to the Democratic nominee. But it won't happen of its own accord. It's going to take a massive level of organizing and a significant investment. ... The fact that he's willing to do that bodes very, very well for the state, and may bode well for his candidacy."

    Heartfelt thanks (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    to the Democratic Managers, each and everyone---Representatives Crow, Demings, Garcia, Jeffries, Nadler, and, their leader, Adam Schiff.  These Representatives are great representatives of our government and for democracy. Their presentation, as a whole, was  masterful, demonstrating the expertise and discipline of a civics ballet.  And, too, the outstanding staff work underpinning the work of the Managers was readily apparent.  I am confident that thinking Americans are grateful.  

    How I wish Adam Schiff was running for (none / 0) (#118)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:21:58 PM EST

    Me too. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:31:08 PM EST
    I hope one day he will.

    My (none / 0) (#121)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:49:44 PM EST
    current fantasy is the Democratic convention is so hopelessly deadlocked, they all give up and   award the nomination to him as a grand compromise.

    In the real world, if Kamala gets VP her seat is his for the asking, likewise when Feinstein hangs it up.


    New Rules (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 08:12:44 AM EST

    On Friday night's edition of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, the host devoted his "New Rules" segment to advising Democrats that they should begin to fight dirty. One suggestion: to cut an ad that exploits Trump's verbal lapses by questioning his mental competency.

    An emergency, routine, unscheduled (none / 0) (#136)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    physical exam at Walter Reed last November is still a mystery.  Trump's previous annual physical was nine months before. Don't know why he needed to get a leg-up on his next physical  when his private physician Dr, Harold Bornstein reported that Trump  was in "astonishingly excellent" health.  And, that all his tests were positive.  Sure, Dr. Bornstein admitted that Trump dictated the report, but still.

    I think the central (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 12:29:07 PM EST
    Most important point there is f'ck the high road

    F'ck the very idea OF a high road.   There is no high road in the age of Trump.  There is winning and losing.  I think people need to try hard to get their minds around that one thing.

    And then push pull or get the F out of the way.  Maybe offering a helpful b!tch slap to any friend they find wringing their hands about it.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    And, if you conclude, as I do, that Trump and his Trump Party are taking the country down a fascist path, or at least, rendering it unrecognizable as a Constitutional democracy, Marquess of Queensberry rules need to go the way of button shoes.  

    Did you see the Pete interview? (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    Curious about your thoughts.  I like Pete.  I did not find it a particularly impressive performance.  Not bad really.  Maybe I'm judging by the bar Pelosi set.

    I thought (none / 0) (#143)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 01, 2020 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    Pete did a good job.  The.remote site with a few seconds delay muted its effectiveness, both for questions and answers.---especially reactions to jokes.  Pete is consistently poised and  deftly navigated around Bill's serious topic of Trump digging in when he losses with "it will be awkward when Chastin and I move  into the White House."  And, yes the Pelosi interview set a very high bar.

    Since it's an Open Thread, (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    Let me introduce a different topic.
    Are you rooting for either team in the Super Bowl, and if so, which one?  I have to lean towards San Francisco, since we lived there for awhile and my kids were born there.

    Are you serving any snacks during the SB?  In our once a year foray into deep-fat frying, I am making my dad's Buffalo wings recipe, as well as his St. Louis toasted ravioli recipe.  This year I'm also trying some simplified Korean barbecue sauce wings.

    I'm recording it for the commercials (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    That will not require snacks.

    But I made Scotch Eggs for breakfast again.  I like them a little two much.


    Great profile/expose on what a fraud and (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:22:32 PM EST
    grifter Sekulow is. At least it's the Bible-thumpers he's profiteering on. Maybe, in another time, the IRS will investigate and impose the appropriate penalties.

    Great, informative article. (none / 0) (#200)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 03, 2020 at 12:07:38 AM EST
    Worth a read.

    I really don't understand (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    If I was Biden I would be leaning into this.  It seems to me a smart pol could use the idea that if Trump and the Minions are this desperate to smear him they must be really really afraid of him.

    I don't see him doing that.  He just bumbles around letting stuff happen.

    Even worse (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    he seems to have a thin skin about the whole situation. Anyone mention Hunter and he has a meltdown.

    We are getting to a stand-off (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    It seems.  IMO if Biden cared about the country and his testimony would help get rid of Trump he would demand to testify.

    A pol smart enough to win a election could turn it to his advantage.  Assuming there is not more stuff we don't know.  And if there is is he so feeble he thinks it won't come out anyway?

    I see the democrats about to blow this protesting a loser.

    Ted Cruz say it will be close.

    By my count we have 3 republican votes.  Right where I was afraid we would be.

    Love to be wrong.

    Claire just made a good point.  The Republicans can call whoever they want.  If they want Hunter Biden, call him.  If you think it will help.  Call Adam Schiff.  Please.

    The dems and the press have to stop pushing this bogus "swap" idea.  Lindsey wants a swap.  Maybe some should tell him he runs a major committee.  He can call him any time he wants.


    Adam (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    Schiff for Devin Nunes is a trade I could really go for. The flop sweat would be epic.

    Never (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    thought about it this way, but I think Biden putting his chips on the table would be a smart or even brilliant move.

    If the Repugs fold and refuse all witnesses he wins, a small pot.

    If the Repugs call him he has a good chance of winning the whole shebang.

    I normally wouldn't put too much faith in Joe, but the Senate floor is his native habitat after all and every Senator knows exactly  what the truth is about his actions in Ukraine, several are on the record as supporting him.

    He could and should be able to get up there and kill this smear job once and for all, shame the GOP  Senators and highlight the lies of the tRump team.

    A slam dunk would go a long way to help him nail down the nomination, IMO.

    He was literally


    If he can't (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 04:13:22 PM EST
    He damn sure can't beat Trump

    I think we'd likewise defend our children. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:10:18 PM EST
    Ga6thDem: "Even worse he seems to have a thin skin about the whole situation. Anyone mention Hunter and he has a meltdown."

    Ne'er-do-well or not, Hunter Biden is still Joe's only surviving son. Whether he had the professional credentials or was otherwise qualified to sit on Burisma's board of directors, and whether or not he was entitled to receive a (pretty excessive) $50,000/mo. remuneration for his services (such as they were), neither one is the primary issue that prompted these impeachment proceedings. Let's please not allow our attention to otherwise be diverted by any more such red herrings.

    The bottom line here is this: There is no evidence whatsoever that either Hunter or his father broke any laws. And as disheartening as it might be some people, we need to remember that as Trump's intended target in this reckless and politically-motivated scheme, Joe Biden is the victim here. This was indeed an extraordinarily ugly if otherwise harebrained attempt to slander and smear him through a third-party actor, one that certainly rivals Watergate break-in in both its chutzpah and its stupidity.

    And while Biden is not my first choice to be our party's nominee, I'm not going to do Trump's dirty work by badmouthing him. Surely, we can support our preferred candidates by singing their respective praises, rather than slurring and demeaning their inter-party rivals.

    Please remember
    that come November,
    We're voting blue,
    No matter who.



    This is the (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    argument I hear a lot. It's not about Hunter's issues. It is about Biden giving them cover for not calling witnesses. What would be so hard for Biden to say I'll march right down there and testify that I know nothing. Biden is totally missing the political opportunity here. I'm beginning to think people don't have confidence in him to handle the situation.

    Are you seriously saying (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    You will let them win this stupid witness swap nonsense and let Trump win.  Because that's what you are doing.  Exactly what they expect you to do.

    Some might see that as doing Trumps dirty work.  


    All I said was that the GOP's attacks on Hunter Biden are a red herring, because there is no evidence that either he or his father broke any laws. Rather, it's a flagrant (and desperate) attempt to divert public attention from the underlying scandal and related obstruction issues that prompted the House to pass articles of impeachment in the first place.

    I further noted that as the intended target of Trump's and Giuliani's aborted Ukraine smear campaign, Joe Biden was the victim here. I said that while I'm not personally supporting his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, I'm also not going to do Trump's dirty work by badmouthing him -- or any other remaining Democratic candidate, for that matter. And I sincerely mean that.

    Further, all I requested was that regardless of whomever we support this primary campaign season, that we please do so by highlighting our preferred candidate's attributes, rather than denigrate any of the other Democratic candidates who are likewise pursuing the nomination.

    My own favored candidate has already dropped out, and while I have my own preference amongst the remainder, I respectfully decline to share it. I intend to fully and unequivocally support the Democratic nominee, whoever that person may be, and I hope everyone else here will, too. So, I really don't know what you're objecting to.

    Regarding any proposed Senate subpoena for the testimony of Joe and / or Hunter Biden, I'd only note that the Republicans control that chamber. If they want to remain wedded to their own right-wing crackpottery, they likely have the votes to do so regardless of any individual GOP senator's self-professions of personal sanity. As to whether or not either of the Bidens are willing to comply with said subpoena(s), that's ultimately their decision to make and not mine.

    Personally, I'm at a point in this scandal donde que será, será. Because we are presently captive to events in Washington, such matters are clearly out of my hands. I can only hope that the majority of our Democratic congressional representatives will somehow continue finding ways to do the right thing by America. And I'll trust my own judgment to act or react accordingly.



    Republicans should (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    really be supporting Bolton's book rather than running from it.  Maybe, after 47 GOP senators, in March 2015, sent an Open Letter to the Ayatollahs attempting to undermine President Obama's and five other world powers' achievement of a nuclear deal, they could strike an accommodation with Bolton so that a portion of the proceeds of his book sales go to bombing Iran.

    Lindsey just sounded (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    A little nervous.  While basically saying even if they get Bolton they won't learn anything because privileges.  And there will be MANY witnesses.

    But he dint sound really sure.

    I can not believe they will not vote to hear witnesses.

    Political Wire

    Big Majority Back Witnesses In Impeachment Trial

    January 28, 2020 at 3:03 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 43 Comments

    A new Quinnipiac poll finds 75% of Americans think that witnesses should be allowed to testify in President Trump's impeachment trial, while 20% do not.

    Support for witness testimony includes 49% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats, and 75% of independents.

    On the question of whether Trump should be removed from office, voters remain divided, with 48% opposed and 47% in favor.

    I saw where Tr*mp tweeted that he did not (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 08:55:40 PM EST
    say to Bolton what Bolton is reported to have written Tr*mp did say. If so, Tr*mp should be held to have waived Executive Privilege by voluntarily giving his side of the discussion. ChJ Roberts understands this.

    He did (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 09:26:08 PM EST
    Donald J. Trump
    Jan 26
    I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the...

    The consensus seems to be the fact Mitch made this public, that he did not have the votes, was so Trump, Hannity, Rush et al can bludgeon them for a couple of days.

    Thinking it might not work this time.

    I think the absurdist defense strategy of having the father of modern impeachment whine about how divisive impeachment is came across more like trolling.  Not sure that was the best approach.


    I saw it discussed (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 06:13:45 AM EST
    that Bolton's book is going to come out at some point. Bolton is going to go on a book tour. If the senators vote against removing Trump it is going to be much worse for them than just calling him to testify. It's all going to be out there. I wonder if NY state is holding criminal charges until after the impeachment trial is over. It's been awfully quiet on that front for quite a while.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 07:05:08 AM EST
    A book is not under oath.  As Trumps "lawyer" pointed out.  If it's you would you rather have stuff in a book from a "disgruntled former employee" or testimony under oath.

    I tend to think Mitch will find the votes.  I once sadly predicted 3 republican votes.  Watch out for that.

    Look on the bright side.  I always (try) to say.  It's  more clear all the time they are f'ed either way.  Not surprising if they go down with the shi+.  So to speak.

    Remember this.  

    republicans are being our raised at every level.  House, Senate, local and, well Bloomberg.

    Huge majorities are going to hold them accountable if the acquit Trump and more comes out.  And we know it will.

    So, be of good cheer.  At least about kicking Republican azz in Nov.  

    Now you can worry about getting him out of office when he loses.


    Oops (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 07:09:24 AM EST
    Political Wire (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    "With the critical vote looming on Friday on whether to call new witnesses in President Trump's impeachment trial, Senate Republicans are coalescing around the idea that it is better to risk looking like they ignored relevant evidence than to plunge the Senate into an open-ended inquiry and anger President Trump," the New York Times reports.

    So, we at 3.  Imo there will not be 4.  There will either be 3 or 6-10.  Not seeing a hero who is going to jump alone.  
    That said, it's not impossible I guess there could be a McCain/ACA moment.  
    So who wants to be the new McCain.  Worshiped by all the wrong people.  Probably only someone retiring.  Lamar, are you listening?


    Lord (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    these are the most pathetic people ever. They are are afraid of Trump doing a mean tweet against them.

    Friday or bust (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    Senate GOP Will Move to Acquit Friday Night

    January 29, 2020 at 4:19 pm EST By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment

    Sen. John Barrasso (R-WV) told NBC News says the GOP's plan would be to move to immediately acquit President Trump on Friday night if in fact the U.S. Senate votes against calling additional witnesses.

    The Hill: "It was clear to Senate Republicans on Wednesday after a morning meeting between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that the question of having additional witnesses is settled, and the Senate will vote Friday to wrap up the impeachment trial of President Trump."

    Tick tock


    They have completely (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 03:04:37 PM EST
    given up and waved the white flag to the Kremlin and Trump. What an embarrassment they are for our country.

    Yes (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    On the upside it's happening on live tv and the images will live forever.  We are so far down the rabbit hole here.  This has become such a farce and a joke it's pretty hard to believe minute to minute.  They have provided 10,000 attack ads.

    I think they even know that.  Great example

    Sen. Cory Gardner told Colorado Politics that he thinks the Senate has heard from enough witnesses in President Trump's impeachment trial, taking off the table a potential Republican vote to subpoena national security adviser John Bolton.

    Said Gardner: "I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness. I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and attention required by law, and have reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House, which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses."

    He is going to lose.  That's about as sure a bet as you will find.  So all he can do is cling to Trump and hope that might give him enough Republican love that he won't be selling insurance in a year.  Same with McSally.

    The celebrations if the Friday acquittal happens will be fierce.  So will retribution.  Probably. So there's that.


    That's not a good (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    argument since the GOP is going to be the ones voting NOT to hear Bolton under oath.

    Just Security (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 08:41:53 AM EST
    Why the White House May Not Dare Fight on Executive Privilege

    Given the list of federal crimes that leading legal experts conclude applies to the alleged scheme with Ukraine, a federal court finding could be a significant blow to the White House both in the impeachment itself and more generally as it would not be coming from members of the other party. It would also strengthen the hand of prosecutors who may be investigating others, like Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, as co-conspirators in such a scheme.

    In short, there's a legal buzzsaw that would await the White House in asserting a claim of executive privilege as it would open the door to a judge finding that the crime fraud exception applies.

    Here's a thought about this
    If this is true (whatdoiknow) and if we know this, they also certainly know this.  
    How far do you think they will go to not let this happen?


    One of the senators (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    said there were 5 to 10 senators willing to vote for witnesses. I guess we will see if that comes to pass.

    Sadly, no (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    Well, yes.  But that was yesterday

    Angus King Now Says Witness Vote Will Be Close

    January 28, 2020 at 3:59 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 139 Comments

    Sen. Angus King (I-ME) told CNN that his prediction that up to 10 Republican senators would vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial was "a little naive."

    Said King: "I think it's going to be really close."

    WSJ reporting this afternoon (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    McConnell currently does NOT have the votes to block witnesses.

    Well then (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 05:16:03 PM EST
    he's got at least 4. It's not going to get any better with probably more tapes and more Bolton every day.

    Doug Collins (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    has announced that he is going to run against #KremlinKelly in the jungle primary here in GA. I think it has to something to do with voting or not voting for witnesses.

    If they really do vote to call witnesses (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 06:04:48 PM EST
    Trump is going to lose it.   Really probably lose it.  Because that means the grand plans for his victory lap Hannity/Super Bowl interview is kaput.

    And even worse there is no way he won't still be on trial for the STOU.

    The republicans surely know the hell they are courting.  But the chickens might just be about to come home to roost.

    The next few day are going to be somthin


    Corey Gardner (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 28, 2020 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    is apparently arguing that calling witnesses is going to make it harder for him to win reelection because the Dems are going to be able to cut more ads. The fact that 75% of the country wants witnesses apparently does not faze him. Like there aren't already enough bad ads that can be cut from 4 years of voting with Trump to take away people's healthcare and whole host of things?

    Book blocking (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    Go to the loo (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    You miss something

    Eliot Engel (Foreign Affairs Chair) just said Bolton talked to him about something fishy in Ukraine that should be investigated long before it became news.

    This should make a couple of people wonder what's next.

    Details (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    Things we learn from tv (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    From this I learned about

    Scotch Eggs

    Never heard of Scottish Eggs.  And they are, in the show, discussed and eaten in a bar.  So I though they had to do with Scotch which I don't really like so it did not sound that good.

    Later while surfing bored I learned they are not.

    Made them for the first but definitely not last time for breakfast.


    Scotch Eggs (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    Not Scottish Eggs. And they are wonderful. I've been looking for a good Scotch Egg around where I live. (Good restaurants are slim pickings. Baltimore and Philadelphia are where I go for a class meal.).

    Boiled egg covered in sausage and deep fried. Can't believe someone as worldly as you hasn't heard of them before.


    In the series (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    He called them Scottish Eggs.  So I said it both ways.

    And it's egg, sausage more egg and breadcrumbs and THEN fried.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    From Pennyworth below.

    Not from Eliot Engle.


    A lady (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    I know who grew up in England brings these to Christmas gatherings. Truly they are awesome. I asked how to make them and she told me. I'm not sure I could get the sausage around the egg right though.

    Pennyworth (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    I just discovered this.  It's very good

    Pennyworth is an American crime drama television series, based on characters published by DC Comics and created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, that premiered on July 28, 2019, on Epix. The series is executive produced by Bruno Heller and Danny Cannon and stars Jack Bannon as the title character, alongside Ben Aldridge, Emma Paetz, Ryan Fletcher, Hainsley Lloyd Bennett, Paloma Faith, Polly Walker, and Jason Flemyng.

    Pennyworth explores the early life of the titular Wayne family butler, Alfred Pennyworth, a former British SAS soldier who is forming his own security company in an alternate London which combines aspects of London in the 1950s and 1960s with invented events and practices (for example, televised public executions). Alfred becomes a target of the Raven Society, a group conspiring to take over the British government, and begins working against them alongside American agents of the No Name League, Thomas Wayne and Martha Kane, the future parents of Bruce Wayne/Batman.[2]

    Bruno Heller was behind the excellent HBO series Rome.

    So I'm really hooked on this (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 04:25:40 PM EST
    A funny thing is one of the main heavies, John Ripper, a undertaker/crime boss played by a guy named Danny Webb

    Is a dead ringer for Mike Bloomberg

    They are even the same height and he sort of walks the same way.


    I'm turning off the trial. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    After another round from the GOP of "What's Hunter Biden hiding?", I've heard enough. This is just a rehash of Trump's conspiracy theories. I predict that this trial will end on Friday night with a vote against calling more witnesses or introducing further evidence, followed immediately by a vote to acquit.

    It appears to be more important to Republicans that Trump be allowed to crow to Hannity on Super Bowl Sunday that he was exonerated, than it is to find the truth about what actually happened. That this matter holds rich potential to blow up in their faces sometime later this year when more evidence emerges doesn't faze them in the slightest.

    I've got better things to do.

    If the Republican Senators (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 09:13:10 PM EST
    do not permit witness testimony and documents, they must be labeled as being  part of the cover-up and will have contaminated an acquittal.  

    Senator Schumer should ask  Chief Justice Roberts to rule on the inclusion of witnesses and documents.  If, he does not deferring to the senate, it places the trial at the same place; if Roberts rules in favor but is over-ruled by the senate, an acquittal would become toxic, if not lethal. If witnesses and documents are permitted, the odds favor a President Pence.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 29, 2020 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    ...how much George Soros is paying Trump's attorneys, but they are totally delivering for him.

    Are you sure it's Soros (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 10:27:01 AM EST
    and not Steyer or Bloomberg?

    Interesting choice (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:04:37 AM EST
    Would not have been my first guess for the topic of the $10,000,000 super bowl ad.

    Bloomberg Super Bowl Ad Focuses on Gun Control

    January 30, 2020 at 7:29 am EST By Taegan Goddard 71 Comments

    "After the dazzle and pop of Jennifer Lopez and Shakira's Super Bowl halftime show this Sunday, Michael Bloomberg's presidential campaign is hoping to "stop people in their tracks" with an emotional ad featuring a mother who lost her son to gun violence," the New York Times reports.

    "In the minute-long ad, which the campaign released on Thursday, Calandrian Kemp tells the story of her son, George Kemp Jr., as the camera pans across childhood pictures of George in football gear. He was shot and killed in 2013 during an altercation while he was at college; he was 20."

    Just saw the ad on MJ (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:39:57 AM EST
    It's a very good ad.

    I can't watch today (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:16:36 AM EST
    Can't do it.  I'm with DfH.  This is probably over except for the end zone dance.  Which is gonna hurt like hell.  I don't need to torture myself today.  Im supposed to go to Blanchard state park with a friend and our dogs.   Get very high and not think about this if I can.

    I caution about hope for Alexander.  Yeah, he is in Howard Bakers seat but he's not Howard Barker, not that Baker was a paragon, and more importantly he is Mitch's BFF.  For real.

    The truth is it's hard to imagine a more motivational event to kick off this election year.

    I suggest we just try to get past this take a deep breath, pull up our socks and prepare for the next episode of The Death of the Republic.

    Because it's not just me and Bill Maher anymore.


    Democrats are already bracing for a `hostile' Trump transition

    And that's the optimistic version where he concedes

    We (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 08:59:10 AM EST
    won't be watching an end zone dance, we will watching a coronation.

    Don't fool yourself, the election will not save us.
    The chances for a free and fair election are approaching zero.


    Probably not (none / 0) (#46)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 10:19:49 AM EST
    Roberts has been steadfast in trying to (at least) appear to remain non political.

    Not to mention even if Roberts does there still have to be individual votes for each specific witness who is called.


    in wrong thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    should be in the one below

    One other thought (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:36:32 AM EST
    About the fallout from acquittal.  This thing from Rick Scott shows us acquittal will not only fuel Trumps cray cray it will also even more importantly leave open the idea it was Biden all along.

    That's nuts, right.  Not even possible, right.

    One word.  Emails.

    They will kill Biden with this.  If he was ever considered a plausible candidate this means he is not.  I'm sorry if this is not what Biden fans want to hear.  You can say taking it seriously is what they want, playing their game etc.

    Again.  Emails.  Biden can not be the nominee.  They will beat him with this every day.  The world is not fair, yeah yeah.  Just ask Hillary.


    Joe Biden (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    should call a news conference this afternoon to offer his testimony at the trial in exchange for testimony from  Trump, for starters, and Bolton as an alternate.  Trump, of course, will cop out, but calling the bluff at this point will upset the smirking Republican senators who with knowledge of the votes in pocket have gone full-frontal fascist.

    The Republican senators are using Roberts as a sock puppet making him read aloud their disinformation, far right conspiracies, attacks on Representative Schiff, and blaming it all on the dastardly whistleblower.  Rand Paul's question must really have  gone off the vile scale in that Roberts refused to read it.

    All topped off with Dershowicz's dangerous argument, L'etat c'est moi. Trump has absolute power without boundaries!  Above and beyond a responsible acquittal argument in a democracy and on the way to a sanctioned voter-proof election.  This is more than an unpopular position it is a subversive one.  Dershowitz is retired but this is an occasion of reproach for Harvard University by rescinding his emeritus title.


    I think he ""should" have (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    Done that a long time ago.  Or a whole list of other things he could and should have done.

    His nonresponse to this is exactly why I think he can't be the nominee.  He's probably not a bad man and might even make a decent president.  And in a normal year maybe not even the worst candidate.  We are miles past normal.

    He is not equipped to deal with this.  In many way I think.


    The field (none / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    Is narrowing.  John Delaney dropped out of the Democratic primary.  He, apparently, sensed he was not getting traction.

    LOL! I did not know he was still in the race. (none / 0) (#88)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    I wonder how long Deval Patrick is going to hang on?  

    Tr*mp world is doing their best to make sure that (none / 0) (#53)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 12:27:28 PM EST
    Bernie wins the nomination. I guess they are feeling pretty confident they can take him on in the general.
    As much as I would like to see Warren win the nomination, it is not looking very promising. If not her, between the three white, geriatric, 'B' men (Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg), I am going with Bloomberg.

    Though I would recommend he not do this with any dogs but his own. You never know when that "friendly pup" decides, now is a good time to chomp on those fingers.
    On the plus side, as soon as the above video started making the rounds painting Bloomberg as a bit kooky, he put out an ad to counteract it.

    While, I think the whole thing is a bit silly, I like the fact that Bloomberg is ready to counteract anything that might be perceived as negative, even if it is silly. What a billion dollars to burn can do for you.

    P.S.- I just want to say how depressed it makes me that Warren's M4A plan got picked apart and when she backtracked a bit, she got hammered for it. And, Bernie 'Mr I have been running on M4A for years, but still don't have a plan for it', gets no push back.
    This country will not elect a female president and most definitely not an intelligent one.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    the GOP really wants to run against Bernie. It's quite obvious to everybody except his cult members. he would lose to Trump in 2020 just like he would have lost in 2016. If we had nominated him in 2016 we would not even know about Trump's Russian ties.

    The press is unwilling to give any woman a fair shake it seems but then the voters have a problem with women candidates too it seems. The only thing positive I see out of all that is the fact that people who were saying they would vote for a woman not just Hillary were lying. They won't vote for any woman and were just projecting their misogyny onto Hillary.


    Sometimes I think Sanders could win (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    But it always passes.

    Another reason to think about Bloomberg might be this.  It's no longer a fringe idea Trump will refuse to concede and leave office if he loses.  It's starting to be discussed quite a bit.  I wouldn't even be surprised if Trump himself brings it up soon.   It looks like Friday is going to make him feel pretty confident.

    So try to imagine the world in January when Trump has brought legal challenges to the election results in every state he lost, just as an example of what he might do off the top of my head,  and he has done this with the full support of the DOJ.

    So we find ourselves in a legal fight for our country.  

    Ask yourself who you would rather have in the trenches with you.  Bloomberg with his bottomless pockets, media empire and an army of lawyers and rich and powerful movers and shakers or Biden/Bernie and the DNC.

    it's true he has pledged to use those resources whoever the candidate is but human nature says the fight will be way more joined if it's his office he is defending.

    Something to consider.


    I (none / 0) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 08:02:37 AM EST
    will probably watch some, even though it is extremely depressing.

    I feel like I am watching the death of democracy and it's not even in the dark.


    Frankly (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    I am energized. We have absolute proof of absolute corruption of the entire GOP at this point. There is no one that can run from this mess. Them not voting for witnesses and if they likely vote to keep Trump they are now collaborators in every crime he does and you know he's likely going to commit even more crimes now after this. The voters are going to have to handle the GOP and the criminal justice system after November 2020 will handle the crimes of the GOP.

    They don't seem to be running (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    It's almost like they think there is a plan B.  Other than that election thing.

    Yeah, I really (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    wonder what is going on in their minds. However, we can't know that but we do know their actions and that is enough. They are afraid of a conman tyrant who tweets.

    I came home (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 04:06:29 PM EST
    And made the mistake of turning it on.  Just in time to catch a question sent up by RoJo on behalf of several full mooners that was so crazy you could tell even Roberts was embarrassed to read it.  But it didn't stop him.  

    It was so batshi+ Schiff just came up and said I won't even dignify  that with a response.   We are in uncharted territory.

    Also, say what you want about the Bernie Bros as long as you read this

    Biden won't say if he will endorse Sanders


    Murkowski (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    asks "why not let Bolton testify?" WH counsel respond with the same old the "house didn't do their homework why should the Senate do theirs? Murkowski sounds like a yes, that makes 50 with Romney and Collins.

    Alexander declares tonight, my guess is no.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:53:40 PM EST
    if we are left betting on Lamar Alexander to do the right thing we're running a fool's errand. There will be no witnesses and the soviet show trial will be over tomorrow night.

    You guessed right (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    Alexander chickens out, will vote no on witnesses.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 01:55:04 AM EST
    You should read his public statement, which sounds like an attorney pleading nolo contendere on behalf of his client and then asking the judge for a deferred acceptance of guilt and suspended sentence. To sum it up: "Yeah, okay, the Democrats proved their case. Trump's guilty as charged, but it was merely inappropriate, and not a high crime and misdeameanor. So let's move on."

    Speaking as a historian, I have to admit that I'd be very hard-pressed to find another statement more self-serving and cowardly in the annals of senatorial deliberation.  Sen. Hermitage Tara Twelve-Oaks clearly prioritized his longstanding friendship with "Moscow Mitch" McConnell ahead of his own country's well being.

    Shame on him.


    I (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 05:56:01 AM EST
    thought it was brutally honest here
    "I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.

    "There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens

    We all knew the final defense would be "he did it, get over it"

    I think Murkowski will be a no also (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 06:27:27 AM EST
    Rather than produce a tie than even has the possibility however slim of being broken by Roberts.

    Get over it (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    Interesting in light of the "now breaking bombshell" that there's more Bolton stories the bobble heads are so agitated about right now as I type.

    It's just that.  Alexander gave them the last play.  Ok, you got us.  He did it.  Who cares.

    This new stuff will change not a thing.


    I (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    love this gem
    "It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.
    Why did a little undermining of the rule of law get everyone upset in the first place? Those darn snowflake Democrats strike again I suppose.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President's actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable. The two are not the same. Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

    To paraphrase Monty Python:
    "When danger reared its ugly head,
    Sir Marco turned tail and quickly fled.
    Yes, brave Sir Marco turned about
    And gallantly, he chickened out.
    Swiftly taking to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Marco."

    I yield the balance of my time.


    I (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    suppose he will announce any day now that he will not vote for tRump this fall.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 05:43:15 AM EST
    just waved the white flag in front of the Kremlin.

    When we got home from work today, my wife (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    said, "Let's turn this off and listen to Patsy Cline on vinyl for a couple of hours." So that's what we did. And made and ate a really nice dinner. Now, I'm almost feeling better.

    My dad used to play Patsy Cline a lot when (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 08:28:52 PM EST
    I was growing up and I used to roll my eyes at his "old fashioned" music.
    When I went off to college, one of the first CDs I bought was a Patsy Cline CD!

    Well, (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    frankly I have a dream that Biden and Bernie get into some sort of death spiral and take each other out. Frankly, I have no doubt that the majority of the party would not endorse Bernie because they are gonna want to keep their seats. Bernie is not going to endorse the nominee either. Best option is for him to be taken out of the running early.

    ... Joe Biden shouldn't even dignify that question with a comment. Likewise, Bernie Sanders shouldn't have to answer a similar question about Biden. Such queries are appropriate in April or May, but not now.

    Speaking for myself, I'll gladly support Sanders if he's our nominee. But the difference is, I'm not running for president.



    Not clear on (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 06:28:52 AM EST
    The problem of saying "of course I will support the nominee"

    That's just me.


    The problem is the media's penchant for ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    ... manufacturing controversy where it otherwise does not presently exist. This race should be about candidates and issues, and not about various media personalities and their often impertinent and absurd demands of those candidates.

    I don't know, maybe you're perfectly okay with allowing the media to drive the Democratic primary campaign by asking loaded questions that have nothing to do with issues but rather, are clearly intended to foster animosity between both the candidates themselves and their respective camps of supporters. But I'm not.

    We've already seen what can happen when politics is treated by the media as a vicarious form of public entertainment which freely conflates celebrity with authenticity, because we're presently enduring a still-evolving worst-case scenario which appears to be escalating from deplorable to catastrophic.

    I'll frankly admit that right now, I don't know exactly how we can correct that problem. But I'm pretty sure that a pretty good place to start would be to reject the media's further provocations of yet another intra-party Democratic food fight, which of course only plays into their shopworn "Democrats in Disarray" meme.

    The proper time to ask any candidate if he or she is going to support our party's nominee is not before the first vote in the nominating process is even cast, but when we instead have a pretty clear indication of who that nominee will probably be. Likewise, the proper role for the news media is to report on events without any additional embellishment or drama.



    Quick Quiz (none / 0) (#44)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    If the vote in the Senate is 50-50 for witnesses, secret ballot, etc, does Chief Justice Roberts get the tie breaking vote?

    I don't think so, but the Senate has rules (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 10:45:15 AM EST
    that address such questions. Roberts is presiding as judge over a special sort of trial, he is not acting as President or President Pro Tem of the Senate in the usual sense. (That officer does have authority to cast a tie-breaking vote.) My guess is that if there is a motion, and the motion fails to receive the support of a majority of those eligible to vote (of which a tie would be an example), then the motion fails.

    Article (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 11:07:25 AM EST
    here, bottom line probably not
    There has been simmering debate over the question, with some Democrats openly speculating that Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate trial, might step in to break a tie. Overall, however, there is a widespread expectation on Capitol Hill -- on both sides of the aisle -- that a tie vote would fail.

    "If it ends in a tie? Well, I mean if you don't have a majority, then it fails, yeah, the motion fails," Sen. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and a member of GOP leadership, told CNN on Wednesday when asked about the vote on witnesses.
    "I think the likelihood is -- strong likelihood -- is he would not break a tie and I would respect his position if he didn't," Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said of the chief justice.

    How's this for stupid.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by NoSides on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 10:07:36 AM EST
    From the NYTimes:

    "Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the coronavirus outbreak could be good for the U.S., prompting employers to move jobs to America."

    To be fair, he did say that the virus was, "very unfortunate".

    Ya think?

    News (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    not related to impeachment.

    For the first time in the decade Mexico's economy contracted and for the most part the blame is being put on Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

    Maybe because I am use to being around working dogs like leopard dogs to run cattle I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the Vick dog fighting incident.  Truth be told I think he got off easy.  The argument that his sentence was harsh compared to similar cases only means to me that the other similar cases were not treated harshly enough.  In any case ESPN is airing a two part series that seems to be based on the idea that Vick really loved dogs and should be forgive.  Another part of my position is based on the idea that there is a strong correlation between mistreating dogs/animals and other more serious crimes.

    More signs the Bernie Bros and all the other dems are not on the same page.

    Still don't have all intel in but it seems like my friends down island are kinda getting back to normal.

    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 30, 2020 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    some interesting anecdotal information. My GOP high school classmates are done with the GOP and Dershowitz basically saying the president could commit any crime and it would be okay did them in. Besides the farce of no witnesses.

    Double Jeopardy Doesn't Apply (none / 0) (#76)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 07:27:59 AM EST
    to impeachments, right?  Expecting a steady stream of revelations about Trump's misconduct from now on, how long should the House wait until cooking up new impeachment charges?  Or would it be best to just use them as a cudgel in the election?

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 07:33:14 AM EST
    The latter.  We want Trump to be the face of the party.

    It is a mistake (none / 0) (#86)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 10:44:29 AM EST
    to think the process to remove an official who has been impeached is similar to a trial.

    The House could impeach a president for the exact same thing twice; especially if new evidence surfaced.  The Senate could then vote to dismiss for the exact same reasons they did this time.

    As has been endlessly reported the House can impeach for what ever the House defines as a reason for impeachment.


    There are rumors (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    Mitch is going to delay the acquittal vote until Wed.

    THIS is very interesting.  It's after the STOU.

    I suspect they are afraid of an acquitted STOU Trump.  I would be.

    That's from McCaskill (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:30:26 AM EST
    Supposedly talking to multiple senators.

    Trump will not be happy if they do this.  Mitch might use the line from Terminator:



    Ok, so (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    We are about to start and the senator from AK has not as far as I can find made her intentions known

    She said yesterday she would by now.  If she does not these two things could be related.  IMO her goal is clearly to delay to the last minute so she might appear to "struggle" with the decision.


    Murkowski (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Is a no.

    "no" to what? (none / 0) (#96)
    by leap on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 12:30:07 PM EST

    What the (none / 0) (#97)
    by leap on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    he!! does this mean:

    "Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.

    The quote is missing a few words. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    This is what she really means...

    "Given the partisan nature of (the Republicans, particularly in the case of) this impeachment, from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate (because my colleagues and I will not allow it). I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything (because no amount of evidence is going to prevent us from covering up for the tangerine t*rd). It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed (in their duty to also cover up the criminality of the IMPOTUS, and as a result have shown us up as the spineless, gutless, craven, traitorous cowards, we are)."


    Yes, thank you for filling in (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by leap on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    the redacted parts. That is exactly what the craven crone meant. That's what all the cowardly Republican quislings mean.

    Mucks with the Dem Senators?. (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 02:56:00 PM EST
    Iowa caucus on Tuesday. This delay might require the Dem Senators running for President to remain in DC instead of campaigning in Iowa.

    That too (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 06:59:58 PM EST
    I guess

    It (none / 0) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    seems that they have tomorrow and Sunday off, the trial resumes Monday at 11 for four hours, ending early enough that they get back to Iowa in time to visit some of the caucus sites. Not optimum but better than nothing.

    Fascist demonologies (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    are rooted in expressions of irrationally misdirected anger and frustration with "anxieties" about cultural and other changes occurring or contemplated.

    The definition of fascism varies and its historical detriment has been brought about in different manners, at least initially.  However, among its common characteristics are democracy as  enemy, a leader with absolute power, victimhood, misogyny, scapegoating, and, ostensibly, defenders of Christianity.

    Fascists have achieved power, often, with cross-overs and collaboration with traditional conservatives. For example, Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party gained power with the support of Chancellor Franz von Papen and President Paul von Hindenburg.  

    Historically, the heart of fascist movements is violence as a tool. Reaction to opponents has been threats or actual physical force. Conservative dissidents were not spared.

    Implying fascist tendencies in an American politician can be viewed as polemic. But, it is dangerous to ignore revelatory signs.

    The bizarre and dangerous defense of Trump's wrongdoings, Senators "so what" defense, no harm no foul, nothing arises to impeachment, intimidation of witnesses, determination to uncover the whistleblower, apparently for retribution and as a lesson to others, ominous threats, "take her out", "she is going to go through some things".

    And, Trump at his rallies let's his supporters know what he wants. Police, should not be "gentle" in arrests (let them bang heads on the squad car door), and threats to protestors with encouragment to supporters.

    The Republican senators surely have taken the potential into mind.  Senators may want to retire to peacefully to their homes. They have observed former friends and loyalist thrown under the bus--metaphorically.

    Is it wrong (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 31, 2020 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    That every time I hear the senate Chaplin I think of The Firesign Theater?


    We need a more gender neutral name (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 07:07:23 AM EST
    Than Bernie BRO.  I got one but it would get me in trouble.

    This is so f'ing stupid.

    Kellyanne Conway and the Rest of Twitter Explode Over Tlaib and Bernie Sanders Crowd Booing Hillary

    Meanwhile Michael Moore is losing his shi+ because the DNC, after a request from Warren who thinks she wants Bloomberg in the debates, changed the rules so that if a candidate gets a delegate they can debate.   Which means both Moore and Warren expect Bloomberg to get delegates in the first 2 contests I guess.

    These people are all idiots.  They live in on another planet.

    Meanwhile the "gold standard" DesMoines Register poll due out yesterday is cancelled for the first time in, like, 70 years because of some issue with the methodology

    I expect they will blame either Bloomberg or Hillary for that too.

    Bernie (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 07:29:33 AM EST

    You are the polling guy (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 07:46:52 AM EST
    What do you think about the DMR poll.

    The internet's are losing their minds.


    It (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    seems a bit drastic for one complaint, when you are calling thousands you are guaranteed to reach more than a few cranks and kooks.

    I am assuming it was one of the  very minor candidates, otherwise there would be more of an uproar.

    I'm guessing one of the half dozen Tulsi fans got a call from a "lazy"  phoner who was leaving out part of the list. Judging by the methodology it's unlikely that one interviewer got more than one or two percent of the total.



    If Jmac is right (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    And he usually is and the were alphabetical it was Yang.

    So, yeah.  


    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jmacWA on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    From what I read the names were generated randomly, so a different name would have been unseen each time this person polled a new individual.

    Just to be clear what I read it was only one person who did this.


    Twitter (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:28:53 AM EST
    seems to think it was Buttigieg that got the poll killed. Something about not reading his name out because it was hard to pronounce. I mean that might be complete BS but that seems to be the talk.

    It (none / 0) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    was certainly a rotate list. Long lists that don't fit on one page have  always been problematic.

    This actually makes sense (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    Driving home from a gathering of Democrats late Saturday night, Adcock praised Selzer for pulling the poll -- which was apparently marred by an interviewer error -- but predicted Republicans would "spin it" to cast the caucus as "illegitimate and untrustworthy."

    Pretty good take on the whole thing

    `We're flying blind': Democrats floored by star-crossed primary
    The cancellation of the highly anticipated Iowa poll has the party wondering what could go haywire next.


    Obviously (none / 0) (#151)
    by jmacWA on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 07:46:24 AM EST
    The blame goes to baby boomers... the issue was that the font was to small, and an interviewer with poor eyesight had to increase the font size, which due to poor web development caused the final name on the list to scroll out of the box.

    OMG (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 07:48:55 AM EST
    Seriously?  It's worse than I thought

    Just curious (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:14:27 AM EST
    Where on earth did you come up with the fact that the Debate rules changed at Warren's request?

    You seem to have this weird angry narrative made up about her over it and I'm curious if it's in any way reality based or if you just made it up completely.


    I did not (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:22:38 AM EST
    see Warren named but I did read that there were campaigns who wanted the rule changed for Bloomberg to be in the debates so they could "expose" him.

    That's exactly right (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    Warren was talking about the ability to "expose" him

    You think I'm making it up? (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:27:45 AM EST
    Warrens has been calling for a change in the rules.  The delegate thing was one.


    2020 Democratic candidates aren't happy about new debate rules that seem to benefit Bloomberg
    Candidates who have argued for rule changes that would have increased the debate stages' diversity aren't for the new rules.

    I'm looking for the story that spells it out more clearly.  I read it days ago.


    Here (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#164)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    I think you tend to spread rumors without really caring if they are true.

    And I have no idea why you think that quote suggests for Warren to have pushed to include Bloomberg.

    "Candidates who have argued for rule changes that would have increased the debate stages' diversity aren't for the new rules."

    If anything that says the opposite.


    Uh huh (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    Adam Green, a surrogate for Warren and co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, described the initiative, saying, "I think he'll inherently get more scrutiny when he's playing in the same sandbox. ... But there's still more scrutiny that can come now and voters want it."

    The Bloomberg campaign has responded positively to the new debate requirements.

    If I find the Warren quote I will share it with you.
    I heard a rumor some scrubbing has happened.  


    Not really the point though is it (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    It's not a question of whether someone wants something.  It's a question of whether they have the power and influence to change the rules.

    Tbh it reeks of "riggged".

    You hear lots of rumors many of which have proven entirely false.  That's part of the problem.


    I'm not sure what that even means (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:49:43 AM EST
    It's been reported for weeks the Warren campaign and others were pushing fir this change.  And they apparently had the influence because it happened.

    I think the problem might be it's not particularly flattering for Warren to freak out about a change her surrogates pushed for and she endorsed.

    I'm done with this conversation.


    Feel free to be done (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    I think the problem is you dislike people and go looking for ressons, and there is no shortage of rumors on every subject under the sun for you to allude to and pretend they are evidence.

    Typo (none / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:58:56 AM EST

    Stupid mobile.


    Right now (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    I'm pretending there is a link up there with quotes and other links.

    If you would like some information to rationalize.


    Right now (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    You are pretending that link says something it doesn't.

    And FRT (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    I do not dislike Warren.  I even thought for a while she might have it.

    My current view is she is a terrible candidate.  If she was the nominee, she won't be, we will lose.

    I think she does really dumb stuff.   She seems to be a walking unforced error.

    As far you unease with saying things you don't like about people you do there's a name for that.

    Fake news.


    You are not (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    A reporter, you do not work for any news organizations and you certainly don't hold yourself to any standards of evidence. It's not "fake news" to call you out.

    I'm not debating the article which lists a single Warren surrogate, Zephyr Teachout (a Bernie surrogate) and the entire Bloomberg campaign as having lobbied for this change.  I'm saying your characterization of that is not based in reality.


    Consider me "called out" (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    By reality

    Hopefully (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    these idiots have completely torched Bernie's campaign.

    You forgot the part where Moore thinks the DMR poll being canceled is a conspiracy against Bernie because Bernie is going win and the poll would show that and now it has killed his momentum.


    I should really stfu now (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    But before I go IMO

    that IMO, twice to be clear, I think he will probably win.  But this little episode has sure made what, um, another commenter was saying yesterday about what his supporters will do if they don't win.

    Mr bot might be more right than we want to believe.


    Oh, I have (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    no doubt that his supporters will act that way. This is why Bernie's campaign has to be killed off Super Tuesday. He has to repeatedly lose for them to get the message. My point is that we won without them in 2018 and can again in 2020.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    It won't be killed off on Super Tues.

    Bernie will be in till the last bro dies.  He is the one candidate who almost certainly have money till the end.

    That's, IMO



    Of course (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    he is going to run around yelling at clouds probably until the convention but if he loses repeatedly he'll become a comedy act that everyone will ridicule.

    Also (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    don't be sure he is going to have money. He has an extremely high burn rate.

    I found it a little curious that Hillary Clinon (none / 0) (#190)
    by vml68 on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    was making negative comments about Sanders just before the caucuses/primaries are to start. Payback for 2016 or something else?  She has never struck me as the vindictive sort.
    Today, I saw this.
    'How do you fall for the Bernie Sanders scam?' Martin O'Malley on the Democrats and Iowa

    I remember reading a while ago that there were rumours that if looked like Sanders might be gaining strength, Obama would speak out against Sanders because he does not think that Sanders can unify the party and defeat Tr*mp.
    I am starting to wonder if Hillary and Martin O'Malley are being asked to do some damage now, so that Obama can stay above the fray and only needs to step in if things are looking critical.

    Just me sitting here musing with my tin foil hat on :-)!


    Well, (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    a poll came out today with only 19% of Americans being positive about socialism. Anybody with half a brain knows that Bernie would lose a general election. He's almost 80 years old, slept through the impeachment hearings, apparently can't hear too well, had a heart attack and could have another one at any time. There is a reason why conservatives are promoting him. They want 2020 to be a referendum on socialism not Trump. If it's a referendum on socialism they win. If it's a referendum on Trump they loose.

    Here it is (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 03:19:59 PM EST
    Updated Nov 26, 2019
    Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report

    I also thought it was sort of odd and out of character for her.  I was going to say up there I did not like what Hillary did either but at least she was not leading a chorus of boos at a media event.


    I figure (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    she is saying it to try to let us know that Sanders will do the same thing again in 2020 and to be wary. She's not running and she can take the heat while the other candidates don't have to get down in the muck with Bernie. Also by her talking it draws out the worst in Sanders and his campaign surrogates and they will set themselves on fire like they just did.

    Booing (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    was the absolute worst thing they could do after they booed so many people including Michele Obama at the convention in 2016. But these people are not politically smart.

    A Couple of Questions About Iowa (none / 0) (#178)
    by RickyJim on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    Despite reading a few articles, I still don't get it.  Why the fuss?  How many different candidates can win delegates for the convention?

    I think only (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    the top three will get delegates or can get delegates. You have to reach 15% in a caucus location to remain viable or your supporters disburse to other candidates. It is really confusing for sure.

    The (none / 0) (#189)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    process is indeed confusing, but to my reckoning Biden, Bernie, Buttichieg and Warren will meet the 15% threshold in most or all of the precincts with Klobuchar  having a slight chance in some places.

    It seems very likely that the top 4 will all walk away with some delegates and Amy with a small chance of scoring some.

    Also the delegates awarded tomorrow will just be projected, as the actual delegates are not named until the state which is some time down the road.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    Is there a missing word or it time to put down the bong

    actual delegates are not named until the state which is some time down the road

    Until the state .... what

    Trying also to understand this


    I don't get it either.. (none / 0) (#183)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    It's Iowa for crissakes.  More cows than people.  3.1 million people, 3.9 million cows.

    You Will Love this Wapo Report (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by RickyJim on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    For example, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming have a total of 17 million people, 34.5 million cows and 18 senators.  California has 39.5 million people, 5.1 million cows and 2 senators.  

    At least the cows (none / 0) (#194)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    are adequately represented.  I'm just thinking, why don't they start this off someplace, oh, a bit more diverse.

    Having raised beef cattle, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    I have to say that, while cows are very stupid, there are way too many voters in this country who are even stupider.

    Historically Iowa is/was important (none / 0) (#186)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    To win there you have to have a good retail politics effort.  Candidates who do well there have always showed up in person and interacted with folks who go (often in bad weather) and not only support them but try and convince others to do so.

    Iowa also tends to narrow the field.  If you don't get 15% support you don't get any delegates.  Another important consideration is any dirty laundry a candidate has usually gets aired in public.  While there is money spent on the ground game it really is a cheap date compared to what is spent in big states on Super Tuesday; so it is seen as a place where lesser financed candidates with popular appeal can break out of the pack.

    On the down side it does have some special interest issues like ethanol production that can kill any candidate that does not kiss the ring of the corn growers.

    Bottom line is it puts retail politics ahead of big buck; and same goes for NH.


    Former federal prosecutor. (none / 0) (#196)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 02, 2020 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    Glenn Kirschner, has urged House Manager Adam Schiff to make a motion for a mistrial on the basis, among other things, of White House defense counsel Pat Cipollone's grossly unethical conduct and conflict of interest.

    Kirschner asserts that, as apparently disclosed by Bolton, Trump's lawyer hid from the Senate, Chief Justice and the American people that he witnessed Trump's crimes against the Constitution.  

    A mistrial was not contemplated by the Senate impeachment trial rules and it is very doubtful that Chief Justice Roberts would entertain a mistrial motion.. But, if such a motion was to be made, in an impeachment trial, it may be better to originate from a member of the Senate (Senator Schumer), rather than a Manager.  And, it would be an instructive motion even if dismissed.

    In any event, the  probability that Cipollone is a fact witness, if not complicit in the scheme, should not go uninvestigated.  A complaint to the DC Bar would be a gentle start to be followed with additional steps.

    So, is he lying or truthing? (none / 0) (#201)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 03, 2020 at 03:00:59 PM EST