If the Dems go for impeachment and build a case that the public (or at least most of the public) see as strong and make it obvious Trump is corrupt and unfit to be president and people STILL don't vote to impeach, that could only be good for Dems.

Going for impeachment even when they aren't currently sure if it will work only shows that they are willing to stick to their principals and do the right thing and not necessarily the politically safe thing. That could only be good for the Dems.

Trump 2020 Comms Director Mark Lotter thinks that the Chinese are dropping their prices and further subsidizing manufacturing to hold their prices in the US. That seems like flawed thinking.

Hand in hand with Chinese squabbles, Huawei apparently bid 60% less then Ericson for the 5G equipment for Norway. That seems impossible. Can you even buy the materials/parts, much less manufacture, and ship at that price point without some type of unbelievable Chinese financial support to Huawei? And how could there be anything at all suspicious about that?

So Barr is required to hand over the unredacted parts of Flynn's testimony Friday (today). Is he going to do it?

Meanwhile, Pelosi is going to hold a vote of the entire House to hold Barr in contempt for not showing up.

So either Barr will hand over the docs about Flynn and we'll know a lot more stuff about Flynn and Trump this time next week. Or some judge will impose some sanctions on Barr for not following through on his/her order. Either way, that contempt vote is going to be very interesting next week because either Barr will be under sanctions for not obeying an order or he'll have just handed over some incriminating evidence on Trump. Pelosi's leverage should be much higher when that vote comes next week.

Impeachment isn't popular until it is. Nixon resigned over far less.

https://twitter.com/ForTheRuleOfLaw/sta ... 1001980928

Werthless wrote:Impeachment isn't popular until it is. Nixon resigned over far less.

https://twitter.com/ForTheRuleOfLaw/sta ... 1001980928

I saw a tweet today stating that when Nixon's impeachment hearings began, it polled at around 20% support. By the time it was almost over it was over 60%.

My uninformed takes:

1. I think the case for impeachment is way stronger against Trump than Nixon. It seems pretty clear that Trump has violated the emoluments clause and committed tax fraud with his foundation.
2. I'd also add that Trump demeans the office, is incompetent and behaves in a way that obviously harms the country.
3. However, I don't think an impeachment inquiry is likely to yield any more significant information than is already known (unlike the Nixon inquiry which did) because there is just so much more media now and frankly a more thorough Mueller investigation.

John Dowd joins the flurry accusing the special counsel and the Department of Justice of trying to defame him in the president. This is in relationship to the order to have the full transcript of the voicemail released where Dowd was not so subtly indicating that the president viewed Flynn favorably, a rather obvious quid pro quo type offer while Flynn was talking to the special counsel.

The judge also ordered the release of transcripts of the conversations between Flynn and Kisliaik (sp?). The DOJ lawyer receiving that letter request basically indicated that the request has been received, but they do not find it relevant. Hopefully Judge Sullivan steps forward and snaps that bear trap shut for the DOJ lawyer giving them the bird.

traderdave wrote:
“I think so,” Napolitano responded. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-muell ... nt-1438750

hmmm, that's an interesting take. hadn't thought of that angle before.

thephan wrote:John Dowd joins the flurry accusing the special counsel and the Department of Justice of trying to defame him in the president. This is in relationship to the order to have the full transcript of the voicemail released where Dowd was not so subtly indicating that the president viewed Flynn favorably, a rather obvious quid pro quo type offer while Flynn was talking to the special counsel.

The judge also ordered the release of transcripts of the conversations between Flynn and Kisliaik (sp?). The DOJ lawyer receiving that letter request basically indicated that the request has been received, but they do not find it relevant. Hopefully Judge Sullivan steps forward and snaps that bear trap shut for the DOJ lawyer giving them the bird.

VM from John Dowd to Rob Kelner:

Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I'm-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms. If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... tn-vpx.cnn


That link opens a video of Kamal bell and Don lemon taking in a video of Steve King explaining that not all races contribute equally and that we need to respect our founding fathers this is in response to a question asking if he’s a racist. I think the first word he said was no and then he went on to explain he was a racist in vibrant vivid terms. It’s just well hell let’s be serious, it’s just another day.

Some glorious individual nailed Matt Gaetz with a milkshake after a town hall today.

momadance wrote:Some glorious individual nailed Matt Gaetz with a milkshake after a town hall today.

I'm not a fan of this. It's so immature and does nothing.

i have to know what flavor before i have an opinion

momadance wrote:Some glorious individual nailed Matt Gaetz with a milkshake after a town hall today.

Good. Fuck that guy.

slugsrbad wrote:

momadance wrote:Some glorious individual nailed Matt Gaetz with a milkshake after a town hall today.

I'm not a fan of this. It's so immature and does nothing.

Why treat any of these cunts with maturity and respect? Fuck every single one of them.

As a matter of policy I don’t answer hypotheticals about milkshakes.

Good to see the tripling down with long form tweeting about how clearly he does not understand tariffs. Especially delicious that it comes in the form of criticism of the WaPo that it’s not $200b, but $250b in additional freight on Chinese goods that he misses jam up Americans.

If Trumps returns home without us at war with England, I will consider this trip a success.