Don't know if this has been posted yet, but interesting read on Barr. He's basically had these views since forever. One makes me wonder if he voted for Nixon in the 70s. It also makes me wonder that if he, like Ailes, didn't want to see that again. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...m-barr-donald-trump-impeachment-hearings.html
The protester was an infowars guy famous for pushing pizzagate. The video is hilarious but I only have a Tweet with it. It’s a shame.
I have an Uncle who would use the term way back when of “damn Philadelphia Lawyer”. I thought as a kid it was code for a smooth talking city guy trying to pull something over on us country folk. Maybe there was more to it than that but wasn’t aware.
It might just mean that. But a Democratic rep asked him what he meant by it but was unable to get an answer.
Nadler now being outcoached by Doug Collins. Dems should bring in Chuck Daly to institute the Jordan Rules.
So, I was driving between sites today and put on NPR which, of course, has the impeachment hearings live. I got to listen to this..I don't know, what, old man rant? Complaint? But Nadler really seemed at a loss. In my mind, and a couple of times out loud, I thought John Bercow should have taken over.
Christopher Wray has just stepped up backing IG Horowitz. I guess he's choosing sides rather than waiting for a pardon.
I loved one reason that trump can't be impeached opined by another dead head GOP member. "You can't impeach him. He's in his first term as prez." Guess the man knows his constitution.
So now that the IG report doesn't say what Trump needs, AG Barr and the GOP simply lie about the contents. Even though the report is available in black and white. This is where the media needs to stop with the access journalism when the whole game is simply to lie.
David Allan Green, perhaps the best conservative Brexit commentator, has written a fantastic article about why exposing the lies of politicians like Trump & Boris Trumpson does nothing to stop the flood of lies, nor the rising tide of neo-fascism in the UK (and the US) DAG writes for FT, but in this case the article is on his blog. Short version, how do we make people care about lies and the "f word" when they are lies that people want to hear? But if you call this thing by its name, it now has little or no effect. People will yawn and shrug and pay no real attention. And because what we have before us is not visually the same as the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of the thing – no uniforms, no goosesteps, and so on – many of those hearing the F word will regard what is now happening as not being an example of the F word at all. Of course, using the F word is not as important as stopping the thing it describes from taking hold. Calling politicians – and pundits – liars, and describing the vile populist nationalist authoritarianism that they promote as the F word, is not going to stop them lying or the thing the F word describes. The words are not enough, and it may be that new words are needed to make old warnings. And unless voters can be made to care about being lied to by politicians, or about the implications of the populist nationalist authoritarianism (again) being promoted, then there will be little to stop either the politicians or the F word thing. Making voters care about any of this is the challenge for liberal and progressive politicians (and pundits) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. And the biggest challenge is to make enough voters care in time. https://davidallengreen.com/2019/12/the-l-word-the-f-word-and-contemporary-uk-politics/
I can't help but feel a lot of this ties back to privilege. Why do I care about Trump if he does not effect me personally? Yet what ought to frighten people in the UK is this is way past the point of just being mean to scary muslim brown people (although it is often presented that way).
So the Dems did it. And by “did it” I mean put their stamp of approval on Presidential obstruction of justice. To not even include demanding Meghan create a false record that the President never asked him to fire Mueller is well...I’d call it an outrage...but it’s hard to maintain outrage at the Dems monumental failures.
THIS was an excellent opening from Swalwell yesteday. Loved the way he put it over. SWALWELL: During Watergate, the famous phrase from Senator Howard Baker was asked: "What did the President know and when did he know it?" There is a reason that no one here has repeated those questions during these hearings. We know what the President did. And we know when he knew it. Mr. Goldman, who sent Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to smear Joe Biden? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who fired the anti-corruption Ambassador in Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who told Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who told Vice President Pence to not go to President Zelensky's inauguration? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who ordered his own Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance for Ukraine? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who refused to meet with President Zelensky in the Oval Office? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who ignored on July 25his own national security council anti-corruption talking points? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who asked President Zelensky for a favor? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who personally asked President Zelensky to investigate his political rival Joe Biden? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who stood on the White House lawn and confirmed that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Vice President Biden? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: Who stood on that same lawn and said that China should also investigate Vice President Biden? GOLDMAN: President* Trump. SWALWELL: As to anything that we do not know in this investigation, who has blocked us from knowing it? GOLDMAN: President* Trump and the White House. SWALWELL: So as it relates to President Trump, is he an incidental player or a central player in this scheme. GOLDMAN: President Trump is the central player in this scheme. SWALWELL: There is a reason that no one has said "what did the President know and when did he know it?" From the evidence that you have presented, Mr. Goldman, and the Intelligence Committee findings, we know one thing and one thing is clear. As it related to this scheme, the President* of the United States, Donald J. Trump, knew everything. Donald Trump knew everything because he orchestrated it, pushed for it, checked up on it and continues to encourage it. He is a criminal. And more. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending...nel-livestream-for-mondays-hearing/1016121090
2 Impeachement articles against Trump: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/impeachment-articles-announced/ "Today, in service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment, charging the President of the United States Donald J. Trump with committing high crimes and misdemeanors," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said. Democrats charge that Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals ahead of the 2020 election while withholding a White House meeting and $400 million in US security aid from Kiev. And they say that Trump then obstructed the investigation into his misconduct with a blanket blockade of subpoenas and refusing to allow key senior officials to testify before Congress. Tuesday's announcement sets the stage for a dramatic impeachment vote on the House floor next week, after the House Judiciary Committee debates and approves the articles beginning on Thursday.
Maybe "New York Lawyer" means a "Globalist." You know, someone who is worldly, is familiar with the cultures of a lot of different places and has traveled to exotic locales. I'm sure that's what it means.
Just 2 fvcking articles, really that is all that the Democrats think they can prove? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50731010
No... They are just making it broad. There isn't much point in giving him a pile of impeachment articles if most of them are just the same thing, but for a different act. So instead, they are doing general articles that cover multiple acts.
They are pretty much ironclad, as they are built on facts pretty much already stipulated by the defense. Once he is out of office-- wisha wisha-- he can be indicted for the other stuff; and this way he doesn't get a preview of those cases, and he also can't make the inevitable flatulent argument about double jeopardy...
And yet, he won't be "convicted" in the Senate. Which stuff is that? I highly doubt he'll see the inside of a court room for criminal offenses.. Once he's out of office, they'll want to just ignore him and hope he goes away.