Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

People identifying as christian while ignoring christ and his teachings is a strange thing indeed.

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Be a wild strawberry.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

Oh FFS you might as well trust a 6-year-old with a flamethrower.

Roe is not about choice. It is about freedom.

We will not go back.

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Everybody saw this coming.

Republicans in disarray!

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Fight them, without becoming them!

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

You are here: Home / Politics / Impeachment / Unleash the Lawyers

Unleash the Lawyers

by | 128 Comments

This post is in: , ,

Mueller was never sure he could prove that Donald Trump Jr. valued the Trump Tower Russian dangle at more than $25,000 which is the threshold for federal election finance felonies. That, combined with the lack of a mens rea (and potentially mens ) saved his ass. That won’t be a problem in this case.

Open Thread

Reader Interactions

128Comments

  7. 7.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Kristin Welker praising trump’s ‘counter-punching” skills and talking about how ‘trump world’ thinks this is all great!

  8. 8.

    JPL

    i just tuned in and apparently they are going to block the whistle blower…wtf Sen. Johnson in front of Sen. Murphy that the hold up was due in part to trump’s desire to have an investigation into corruption.

  13. 13.

    patrick II

    The complaint was referred to the Justice Department to see if it was an illegal campaign contriubtion. The Justice Department determined that it was not an illegal campaign contribution because there was no measurable value.
    In other news, Bill Barr, the head of the Justice Department, was one of the people Trump asked Zelensky to coordinate with in the investigation of Biden.

  14. 14.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Halley Jackson to former Biden aide: Does the Vice President “wish he had another crack at how he handled” his diplomacy in Ukraine, preceded and followed with emphatic declarations that there is not now and never has been evidence of wrong-doing.

  15. 15.

    feebog

    Just got up, fed the dogs and still on my first cup of coffee. I just read the not-a-transcript. Holy shit-balls, it’s all laid out there. But what struck me was that Trump could not remember as single name; not of the former prosecutor, not of the Ukraine ambassador. His vocabulary and lack of memory are really telling.

  16. 16.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Ed O’Keefe @ edokeefe
    On Capitol Hill, @MittRomney tells @alanhe, “I did read the transcript, it remains troubling in the extreme, it’s deeply troubling.”

    Shoulders you could land a 747 on, somehow held up without a spine

  17. 17.

    jl

    @patrick II: So Barr’s legal opinion is that, for the president, if the value of the payoff is uncertain, it can never be extortion? Like, hey, there’s a chance Biden might not be the nominee so it was just a flier, an insurance policy, and market is too thin to establish a firm actuarial value, so no crime and nothing wrong. Do I have that right?

    The combination of lies and gaslighting is amazing from the Trumpsters. Turns out that the info in news interviews with ex-WH officials other commenters and I mentioned yesterday was correct. There is no transcript. Trumpster released a write up of staff notes. We don’t know what Trump actually said. That they released what they did, which the legal analysts I heard on the news this morning said was ‘walking right up to the line’ means that what Trump actually said crossed, probably by a mile.

    Any news person who calls this fraudulent release a transcript is either incompetent or covering for the administration. And the bar for unethical and illegal behavior for the powerful in this country is so low, they can do anything. Seems like unless Trump explained the minute details and hour by hour timeline of his plans to punish Ukraine if they didn’t comply by turning over bogus dirt on Bidens, then it was all OK. And then Trump would have to dictate exactly what the Ukrainian smear report would say. Not bribery at all. Really, can’t figure out the quid pro quo.

  19. 19.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Roger Moore: sadly true, but he galls me because he not only presumed to run for president (see also Marco, Lamar!, I don’t count Cruz cause I don’t think he plays with a full-deck) but he damn near made it, and he’s such a Beltway pin up boy

  20. 20.

    prostratedragon

    Congratulations to OzarkHillbilly and family. Believe it or not, I had a good college friend whose name was A. R., with a slightly different spelling of A. That’s a real good-people name.

  22. 22.

    psycholinguist

    I really wish the media would ask the question more directly “why the president’s personal lawyer?” The answer that jumps in front of you, waving its arms and screaming “look at me” is that he isn’t bound by the same records laws or ethical strictures as say, the White House Lawyer, or a State Department official. It seems a huge piece of direct evidence that the intent was knowingly corrupt from the outset. Would be good for somebody on the TV to put it simply in that way, and maybe ask Kevin McCarthy to defend it.

  23. 23.

    patrick II

    Trump believes the agitprop. As people who read this blog know, the agitprop that the Prosecutor General the Obama administration, the European Union, and Unkrainian people in the street wanted removed was just an honest guy working to investigate the company Hunter Biden is working for is the opposite of the truth. He was corrupt and not investigating the company Biden was working for. By getting rid of Skorin, the Obama administration was increasing the chances Hunter would be investigated, which he was, not lessening.
    But Trump has convinced himself the opposite is true. It’s just so dumb. That Trump has convinced himself, and FOX etc. take that as a given, but even supposedly objective media take that as a frame (see: (@Jim, Foolish Literalist: )
    It goes back to “we make our own reality”, and they do up to a point. This time they may have stretched that a little far. Sadly, probably not for Rush and FOX viewers.

  24. 24.

    Anonymous At Work

    @psycholinguist: It also raises an interesting question of “If he isn’t an executive branch employee, there’s no executive privilege claim.” And I think courts would have a hard time swallowing any attorney-client privilege claim in this context.
    Granted, the problem in both cases is that it would either take the Supreme Court ruling directly or 10 years of appeals.

  25. 25.

    Hitlesswonder

    @patrick II: Sooo….if the President’s private lawyer has been working on getting Ukraine to “investigate” Biden, surely that puts a value on the activity. Rudy has an hourly rate that can be stated…you can look at his travel time and meetings with people in Ukraine and I’m pretty sure you get over $25K quickly.

  26. 26.

    patrick II

    @jl:
    @Hitlesswonder:

    You are right about the particulars. My point is the particulars don’t matter. The key for me was Barr was the guy deciding whether or not it was a crime, was involved in the crime, whatever that crime might be.
    It’s like asking a guy just finishing robbing a bank whether he has done anything illegal. Who, me?

  29. 29.

    catclub

    @Anonymous At Work:

    “If he isn’t an executive branch employee, there’s no executive privilege claim.”

    I thought they have already made executive privilege claims for anybody who has ever spoken to Trump.
    Michael Cohen and Trump’s accountant come to mind.

  30. 30.

    eric

    The defense theory is clear: do not produce the Complaint, only produce this “transcript,” and claim no direct quid pro quo for military aid on that phone call QED.

  31. 31.

    Gravenstone

    @JPL: perhaps I should call my worthless senator and let him know there will be an investigation of corruption – Trump’s corruption.

  32. 32.

    The Moar You Know

    Pro-tip: don’t do that “backwards-R” thing – it’s stupid and meaningless.

    @Gin & Tonic: pronounced “ya/ja” = Tyaump

    Agree it’s annoying and stupid. Most people who can read any Cyrillic will agree.

  33. 33.

    Hitlesswonder

    @patrick II: Oh yeah – totally agree with that. We have seen that “law” doesn’t really mean anything other than what powerful people decide it means. This is all of piece with that…having Barr decide whether or not the administration did anything wrong is ludicrous and yet will be presented as an appropriate process by the media.

    I was just suggesting that Democrats could actually make an argument about how to value the investigation.

  34. 34.

    C Stars

    If they defend this, they’ll defend anything, which is scary. There’s just nothing ambiguous about it. He sought foreign interference in our election, and engineered to bribe another country to carry it out. This is what all the GOPs were saying we didn’t have evidence of with Russia. So now we have evidence, and they move the bar again. We either go forward knowing that we have a lawless president and no checks and balances, or the GOP and all its wackjob supporters have to step back and acknowledge that their Dear Tweeter is a criminal. And, clearly, they’re gunning for the former. Which means 2020 is meaningless; they will not relinquish power, rule of law be damned.

  36. 36.

    eric

    @Hitlesswonder: all Trump said was “do us a favor.” that is what i say to someone when i want them to hold my spot in line at the grocery while i run and get the eggs i forgot. That is not mobster talk. (I can hear it already and I am not watching or listening to the news.)

  37. 37.

    patrick II

    @Hitlesswonder:

    yet will be presented as an appropriate process by the media.

    It just was, which is why I am riding this pony. I was watching CNN and some “expert” said the criminal complaint had been referred to the justice department where it was determined that no crime was committed. It’s the frame and words you would use if there was an actual working justice department. That frame doesn’t fit now. The “expert” doesn’t mention that the head of that department, the one making the decision, was involved in the crime.

  39. 39.

    scav

    Wait, isn’t this entire nation-state merely the enforcement arm (and pigs’ trough) of the Republican Party? I’m sure it’s in the fine (sharpied) print somewhere . . . . The touted return to greatness is getting rid of all those useless safety-features and amenities and returning to basics: guns and buttering up white xian “rural” egos.

  43. 43.

    Hoodie

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Talk about a guy who has no fortitude for grabbing the moment. The Mormons have generally never liked Trump, and Mitt probably could come out in favor of impeachment today and still be senator for life in Utah. He’s probably the one major figure in the GOP who could turn on Trump and suffer little if any consequences electorally, while also instantly raising his stature with everyone else. I think he has some sort of abused spouse syndrome from 2012 when he was constantly abused by the right even though he thoroughly debased himself in the effort to suck up to them.

  46. 46.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Hoodie: my theory is he wants to preserve the Cletus base for Tagg 2024 or ’28, the whole White Horse/Mormon Kennedy thing. Nothing else really makes sense

  49. 49.

    gvg

    Isn’t the implication, that the favor is worth the $391 million in military aid? Trump was holding it up for that much and the Ukrainian President was given the impression it would show up when the requested “evidence” was provided. What value would he place on preventing an invasion by the Russians?

  52. 52.

    Mnemosyne

    I have to admit, I am enjoying how absolutely incandescent with rage the Pelosi haters are that she dared to do the thing that they insisted she would never do. ?

    Almost like they’re more invested in hating Pelosi and the Democrats than they are in hating Trump, nu?

  54. 54.

    patrick II

    @jl:

    The combination of lies and gaslighting is amazing from the Trumpsters.

    It’s meant to gaslight us, but they have been staring at the light a little too long themselves.

  55. 55.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    If I hear one more fucking talking head talk about “campaign finance violation”….

    It’s like describing the Brinks truck roberry as “shoplifting”

  57. 57.

    Anonymous At Work

    Question: Why has no one brought up the fact that if the President of Ukraine has a transcript or a recording, that’s blackmail material? “You promised me 400 million but let’s make it 4 billion or the Democrats get the audio recording” type blackmail.

  59. 59.

    rikyrah

    Why this Trump scandal sparked an impeachment push (and Mueller didn’t)
    09/25/19 08:00 AM
    By Steve Benen

    After Robert Mueller released his report on the Russia scandal, about a fourth of the U.S. House decided it was time to pursue impeachment against Donald Trump. There was ample evidence that the president had obstructed a federal investigation into his own alleged misconduct, and it wasn’t hard to argue that the Republican had met the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard.
    Those impeachment proponents, however, struggled to persuade everyone else. Polls showed relatively broad skepticism toward the idea; there was little guarantee that impeachment articles would secure a House majority; the odds of success in the Republican-led Senate were zero; and House Democratic leaders saw no upside – political, legal, electoral, or otherwise – to pursuing such a campaign.

    ……………………..

    So why is the process moving forward now, after failing to advance in the wake of the Mueller report? The New York Times’ David Leonhardt, an impeachment skeptic who’s changed his mind, summarized the dynamic nicely in a tidy paragraph:

    In his dealings with Ukraine, the president committed a new and clearly understandable constitutional high crime: He put his own interests above the national interest by pressuring a foreign country to damage a political rival. He evidently misused taxpayer money in the process. He has shown he’s willing to do almost anything to win re-election.

  66. 66.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @TaMara (HFG): I despise her as much anybody, not a moral bone in her body, but Kellyanne Conway is smart. Is she on vacation? On a couples counseling retreat? recovering from multiple root canals?

  72. 72.

    jl

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I haven’t seen those clips, but they’re trying to make a valid point. By any common sense standard, Trump was committing a crime even apart from a quid pro quo extortion attempt (give us political ammunition and I’ll give you the money). Trump was asking for something of value from a foreign country for his campaign. There are two crimes in the sanitized staff written notes of he call (which is dishonestly being passed off as a transcript).

    I hope they are also making the point that Barr corruptly and absurdly ruled it was not what it plainly was, because he decided it was too hard to put a firm arms length market dollar value on the ask. I guess the Barr Rule is that unless you have a thick and continuously trading options market for securities based on presidential solicitations for illegal campaign contributions, can’t put a value on it so can’t be a crime.

    I’m giving the corporate news celebrity talking heads and pundits a breaks, for right now. Suddenly they are thrust into a situation where they have to impart information rather than BS and spin. They have to practice in real time right in front of us all. Like Todd attempting to confront Kennedy yesterday, they fumble. But, my patience will run out very soon.

    Also, to be cynical, it is still unclear whether Trump will go down, and if so, how long it will take. So, our corrupt media still has to hedge its bets for future access. And their corporate bosses have business deals that can be disrupted by federal officials who notice if they are not being nice to Trump.

  76. 76.

    Mnemosyne

    @Hoodie:
    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Romney knows that the Russians own the Republican Party lock, stock, and barrel. If Trump gets investigated, the whole thing comes tumbling down.

    He’s bailing out the Titanic with a thimble and telling himself he’s saving it.

  77. 77.

    Immanentize

    @psycholinguist:

    “why the president’s personal lawyer?”

    I’m sorry I really only have random moments to comment these days….

    The biggest reason is that the personal lawyer has an ethical obligation and legal privilege of confidentiality to Trump.
    That privilege is owned by both lawyer and client, and the lawyer can assert the privilege on behalf of the client. Government lawyers have no confidentiality privilege as to Trump. The President may have some limited privilege
    to make a claim of “executive privilege,” which all the Trump people have wildly abused (it has specific requirements). But no government lawyer has the right to claim a privilege of confidentiality on the President’s behalf.

  78. 78.

    jl

    @Hitlesswonder: Thanks. That is a very good point. And Giuliani’s shuttles back and forth to fix up a deal were reported, even the big corporate media news outlets gave those reports almost no attention in the US. And reporters even could figure out what they were for: negotiating carrots and sticks for the Ukrainians to cough up what Trump wanted.

    And Giuliani has repeatedly stated he represents the president as his personal lawyer, except when he is on secret missions authorized by the US Department of State.

  80. 80.

    Raoul

    @patrick II: I am just a punter, but I can’t see how Barr isn’t in tremendously hot water in all this.

    Given how tight the circles are in this WH, and how much Barr functions as an attorney for Trump (willingly, I’d add), Barr would very likely have been read in on the Ukraine call, yes?

    If so, then DNI taking the whistleblower complaint to Justice and being told to kabosh it is … obstruction isn’t it? At the very least, Barr would need to demonstrate with impeccability (hah!) that he stayed out as he is clearly conflicted here.

    But you know the huddle at DOJ included him. This was absolutely top-level stuff.

    Barr should indeed be impeached. Which I’ve been saying for months, even before this latest scandalously bad lawyering. Heck, Barr should be disbarred after all this.

  81. 81.

    Immanentize

    @catclub:

    executive privilege claims for anybody who has ever spoken to Trump.

    Lewandowski is the most recent — never worked for the government.

  83. 83.

    jl

    @Immanentize: I think Giuliani’s babble about being Trump’s personal lawyer is BS and a cover story. IANAL, but I don’t know of any actual legal services Giuliani is providing to Trump. Is he representing Trump in a criminal or civil case? What actual legal services is Giuliani providing? Helping Trump with his will? Working with Trump on a business contract.

    Only in a very corrupt society where anything a powerful person says, no matter how sketchy, must be taken as the truth, would Giulian’s claim be taken at face value.

  87. 87.

    piratedan

    upon reflection, the next ten years will be exciting in seeing the media rehabilitation of former Trump Administration members post their incarceration

  88. 88.

    Immanentize

    @jl: Oh, I am sure Giuliani is doing lots of lawyer stuff representing Trump’s business and campaign interests. At one point, he said he was doing it for free. That, I find hard to believe. But if a lawyer is sought out for or gives legal advice to an individual, there is created a lawyer/client relationship to which the privilege applies. But, it can be broken if, among other things, the lawyer is a co-conspirator or accomplice to a crime.

  90. 90.

    Amir Khalid

    @jl:
    Giuliani has also claimed to be working for Trump for no payment. Which sounds as crazy as anything he says on Trump’s behalf.

  91. 91.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @piratedan: “I’m Chuck Todd, thank you for spending part of your Sunday with us. Stay tuned for “She Said/He Said!” with Kellyanne and George Conway, our own political Bickersons! I know I’ll be watching the fireworks!”

  92. 92.

    Marcopolo

    So my new theory is there are a lotta folks around Trump who are just exhausted by him & this WB thing came up & they went to Trump and were like “so we will leak the Ukraine phone call to distract everyone from the WB” and Trump was like “yeah, leak that, distractions are great” but what the folks making the initial suggestion were really thinking was “wait till everyone sees how bonkers that phone call was—it’s our best chance to get him impeached!”

    The kicker being the folks who orchestrated it all & who are most exhausted by Trump are of course Janavka!

    Makes sense, right? I mean like makes sense in this crazy bizarro Trump reality we are stuck in.

  93. 93.

    Anonymous At Work

    @Immanentize: But wouldn’t Guiliani have to show a nexus of his actions to Trump’s *personal* interests and not as President for official dealings with the Ukraine? And, this is what people are starting to realize, that Guiliani makes himself vulnerable to criminal conspiracy charges which also negate any attorney-client privilege claims.

  94. 94.

    Immanentize

    I gotta go, but e now know that DOJ axed the investigation of Trump’s actions as a campaign finance crime….
    But are they pursuing an investigation of Joe Biden’s corruption?
    Inquiring minds and all….

  96. 96.

    rikyrah

    @HRA:

    @rikyrah:
    When I heard or read about the extra $140 million, my mind went quickly to the wall/fence money.

    So, he took money from the military, to his phucking wall, and now funneled it to Ukraine?

  97. 97.

    M31

    @hilts:

    “This is worse than I think people expected,” Abrams said.

    uh, have these ‘people’ ever heard of Donald Trump? It’s always worse than you expect

  98. 98.

    germy

    Rudy has been Trump’s fixer for decades:

    "The endorsement of Giuliani by Trump yielded dividends that went far beyond the dollars he raised and attracted headlines in every tabloid."
    In 1993, Wayne Barrett explored the tangled ties between Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump #fromthearchivest.co/joRbjcSsMV— The Village Voice (@villagevoice) September 25, 2019

  100. 100.

    Aleta

    @psycholinguist: That’s such a good point. Ingraham last night was working overtime to help Giuliani answer it. She finally came out and asked him directly, why you?

    His answer: “We’ve lost the FBI. Their inability to investigate this is astounding.” (She had to jump in to warn him Barr is on their side.) “Why did I do it? Because the FBI didn’t do their job. Maybe they’re afraid that they’ll expose a crooked agent.”

  101. 101.

    Immanentize

    @Anonymous At Work: Quickly, no need to make a connection between the discussions and the paid-for work. If there is anything discussed (of any possible tenuous relationship to a potential legal matter, which is everything) it falls within the confidentiality principle. There is a big question whether the privilege has already been waived by Rudy’s big mouth public statements…. All the stuff he talked about should have been within the bubble of confidentiality. All of it.

  102. 102.

    opiejeanne

    @Mnemosyne: JESUS! I am trying to catch up today, but what is with that?

    (I go away for oral surgery for just one day and Dumber Watergate explodes.)

  103. 103.

    Ceci n est pas mon nym

    @Anonymous At Work: I suspect that’s in the whistleblower report. I seem to remember it being characterized as a counterintelligence matter, which means that the whistleblower was concerned about what foreign agents could or would do.

  106. 106.

    Leto

    @Amir Khalid: You can. It’s an option in Outlook (also gmail, I believe). There’s “recall”, which recalls an unread email (that part is key, unread). If you’ve already read it…

    There’s also “recall and replace” where you recall the email and replace it with what you ostensibly meant to send. Again, it will recall the unread email. If you’ve already read it, it won’t recall it and you still get the new message. I know these because I’ve seen many, “Oh shit, recall that email!” Moments in the military. This is just incompetence. Dumbshits, indeed.

  107. 107.

    Gremcat

    Did the 250M+ ever get approved by the administrator? If so I would bet the Giuliani got a kickback from the transaction.

  108. 108.

    lee

    @Leto: Another tidbit is the recipient has to allow recall on their side.

    I don’t remember exactly how I did it, but i disabled both read receipts and recalls.

  109. 109.

    Mandalay

    One clear winner in all this is Justin Amash. He tweeted this yesterday:

    Just do what is right. Stop waiting for others to act first. Take responsibility for yourself and set an example.

    He’s not just being an opportunist. He has already put his own ass on the line, and was calling for an impeachment inquiry back in May.

    I can’t see Trump’s attacks unseating this guy if he runs for Congress as an independent. Of course a presidential run would be even sweeter. I hope Trump goads him into it.

  110. 110.

    Leto

    @lee: It’s in the options. I did the same thing. If you haven’t disabled them, it will ask you each time if you want to send it. Again, basic computing skills that these nincompoops haven’t learned.

  111. 111.

    Ruckus

    @rikyrah:
    I don’t get this.
    It didn’t force her hand, this is the moment she needed. She needed to either have the right moment (this) or the right timing. Of course numbnuts handed it to her.

  112. 112.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    @Amir Khalid: Message recall is available after you click Send and is available only if both you and the recipient have an Office 365 or Microsoft Exchange email account in the same organization.

    support DOT office DOT charlie oscar mike /en-us/article/recall-or-replace-an-email-message-that-you-sent-35027f88-d655-4554-b4f8-6c0729a723a0

  113. 113.

    Redshift

    @Ruckus: I could see the “it forced her hand” narrative being useful with the portion of the public that still isn’t sold on impeachment. It helps put it in the realm of not pursuing it for partisan reasons (like the Clinton impeachment.)

    Even if the reality is that she’s a great strategist and wasn’t going to act until she had the votes, having it perceived by everyone except there Fox-bots as “I didn’t want to have to do this” isn’t a bad thing.

  114. 114.

    Ceci n est pas mon nym

    Back in the olden days pre-email, I’ve seen memo recall.

    I worked one place where formal comms were by Technical Memorandum, typed up by a department secretary. One time a friend released one that actually included a small joke as part of a serious technical study. I was glad to see somebody lightening the mood and unafraid to inject a little humor.

    His boss had the memo recalled. They requested everybody on the distribution list give back their copy to the secretary, and it was re-released without the joke.

    (My point was that this process was more cumbersome than the electronic one of trying to recall an email, but on reflection I realize my point was wrong, since you can track the copies and it’s unlikely new copies would have been made, unlike an email.)

  115. 115.

    Redshift

    @M31:

    uh, have these ‘people’ ever heard of Donald Trump? It’s always worse than you expect

    I think he means “worse than people expected in an account that Trump released voluntarily” (and said everyone would think was great.)

    The reality was always going to be worse than we expected, no matter how low our expectations.

  116. 116.

    lgerard

    @rikyrah:

    What about the EXTRA $140 MILLION given to Ukraine?

    Where did it come from?
    WHY was it given?

    From the State Department budget as an authorization for “security assistance”

  117. 117.

    Mnemosyne

    @Ruckus:

    You underestimate the number of people on the “left” who convinced themselves and their followers that Pelosi was never, ever going to allow an impeachment under any circumstances, and now they’re scrambling to scrape the egg off their face and come up with a new reason why Pelosi “really” started the impeachment inquiry yesterday. The fact that even the stragglers are now on board gets waved away as irrelevant, and they’re spending a lot of time spinning their wheels to avoid the obvious conclusion that she now has the caucus support she’s been working for months to get.

  118. 118.

    Mnemosyne

    @Redshift:

    Narcissists always have a distorted view of reality. Trump released this because he really does think it’s fine for him to threaten and extort other countries — isn’t that what a president is supposed to be doing?

  119. 119.

    Mnemosyne

    @opiejeanne:

    Ouchie! I hope the painkillers are working and you feel better soon. Holding ice packs against your jaw in the affected area can help keep the swelling down.

  122. 122.

    opiejeanne

    @Mnemosyne: Thanks, I’m doing really well. I did the ice packs most of yesterday and the swelling is mostly gone. I’ve been using OTC painkillers, rotating Ibuprofen with Tylenol, switching every 3 hours to avoid using too much of either but to keep the pain at bay. I think I can quit by this afternoon, the pain is minimal now, but I’m still a little rocky on my feet.
    I amused myself by watching Marty’s Matchbox Makeovers* on YouTube and reading the latest Louise Penny, with intermittent naps in a sitting position. I slept sitting up last night because the whole elevating my head while in bed doesn’t work very well for me.

    *Very Low-key silly humor from an Aussie while he rescues and restores tiny old toy cars. He always amuses us by using a hilariously wild front page from something like WWN or other tabloid, visible in his spray booth. One that I saw last night had an editorial cartoon about Trump wanting to buy Greenland. I laughed.

  125. 125.

    prostratedragon

    @HRA: Thanks, I was trying to remember where I’d heard that figure recently. Gee wizz, maybe this could turn into a real problem for someone.

  126. 126.

    greenergood

    Why is no one in the MSM talking about the recent Russian bombings in the Donbass, the withdrawal of Ukrainian troop from that border, etc., not long after Trump’s last phone call with Vlad, and Cheeto’s promise of US $$? Or is this a myth? I don’t know how to link but have just been googling, and it looks like this is more than just an exercise in focusing on Biden for the benefit of the deplorables – in fact, Biden looks like a distraction so that Trump can facilitate his Russian daddy’s aims in the Crimea and beyond. Countires like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia are really alarmed at what’s going on in Crimea – as Cheeto cancels Eastern European border countries’ NATO funds – just like withdrawing funds from US military budgets for Army-base schools, etc. to fund his ‘Wall’ – but with even more destructive consequences.

  127. 127.

    J R in WV

    @Amir Khalid:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor:
    Ye gods. How dumb are these people, that they believe you can somehow “recall” an email?

    Well, in fact when I get an email from a friend in a regulatory agency, or a lawyer buddy, often there is a long dissertation attached as an automatically generated footer to the effect that, paraphrased, “If this information is accidentally received by someone other than the intended addressee, please do not read this message, but return it to the sender!”

    I’ve always felt like this is BS dreamed up by a legal intern or otherwise naive person attempting to eliminate a source of potential liability for making a really stupid mistake sending a critical legal email. I would guess the R’s have asked improper receivers to send the data back and delete it from their email archives, which is sometimes actually not possible.

  128. 128.

    Mnemosyne

    @greenergood:

    I would not be surprised if that’s the kind of stuff that’s in the whistleblower’s report, which is why this steaming pile of crap seemed like it was the best option for release.

Comments are closed.