The Commentariat -- January 27, 2020

Late Morning Update:

The Guardian's liveblog for today's impeachment proceedings is here. @10:19 am ET: "Mitt Romney, one of the Republican senators that has already expressed openness to calling new witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, said it was 'increasingly likely' other Senate Republicans would support the request." BUT @10:55 am: "Republican senator Susan Collins declined to commit to supporting a subpoena for John Bolton after one of her colleagues, Mitt Romney, predicted more Senate Republicans would soon join Democrats in requesting new witness testimony." Mrs. McC: I guess she's "concerned" about something. ~~~

~~~ The New York Times' liveblog is here. Mrs. McC: Sadly, I have to be away this afternoon, so I'll miss some of the dissembling. ~~~

~~~ Maggie Haberman: "By Monday morning, several Republican senators had angrily called the White House trying to determine who at the administration knew about Mr. Bolton's manuscript, which aides there have had for several weeks, and what was in it. They told the White House they felt blindsided, according to people briefed on the calls who insisted on anonymity to describe private discussions.... John Ullyot, a spokesman for the National Security Council, issued a carefully worded statement on Monday morning, 16 hours after the Times story was published. 'Ambassador Bolton's manuscript was submitted to the N.S.C. for pre-publication review and has been under initial review by the N.S.C.,' he said. 'No White House personnel outside N.S.C. have reviewed the manuscript.'" Mrs. McC: Trump's private attorney Jay Seculow, for instance, is not one of the "White House personnel." Neither are most other lawyers on Trump's defense team.

Today's Most Significant Unbelievable Lie of the Day -- And Other Lies. Eileen Sullivan of the New York Times: "President Trump on Monday pushed back on a firsthand account from his former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, about tying military aid for a foreign ally to his own personal agenda, as senators consider the president's future in the Oval Office. 'I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,' Mr. Trump wrote just after midnight, referring to a widely debunked theory that the president had pursued about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.... Hours after his midnight posts, Mr. Trump falsely stated that the Democrats never asked Mr. Bolton to testify during the House impeachment inquiry last year.... Mr. Trump also falsely claimed that his White House released the critical military aid to Ukraine ahead of schedule.... 'There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president's defense,' Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said in a joint statement on Sunday...."

Peter Baker of the New York Times: "At first glance, at least, John R. Bolton's account of President Trump's private remarks sounds like an echo of the so-called smoking gun tape that proved that President Richard M. Nixon really had orchestrated the Watergate cover-up and ultimately forced him from office. But this is Mr. Trump's era and Mr. Trump's Washington, and the old rules do not always apply.... The pressure on the handful of Republican senators who had been wavering on calling witnesses will now increase exponentially and the president's defense has suddenly been thrown into disarray. When Mr. Trump's lawyers address the Senate Monday afternoon, they will face the challenge of explaining how his own former top aide says the president did exactly what they say he did not do -- or trying to ignore it altogether.... In their trial brief submitted earlier last week, the president's lawyers made that one of their key points. 'Not a single witness with actual knowledge ever testified that the president suggested any connection between announcing investigations and security assistance,' the lawyers wrote. What's perhaps even more shocking is that the White House knew what Mr. Bolton had to say at least as far back as Dec. 30, when he sent his manuscript to the National Security Council for standard pre-publication review to ensure that no classified information would be released, yet continued to promote a completely opposite narrative." ~~~

~~~ Steve M.: "... Senate Republicans will blame phony offenses by Democrats for their decision to end the trial quickly.... [They] will use the outrage off-ramp to dismiss the case for Bolton's testimony. And if they don't think that will work, maybe a few of them will concede that testimony from Bolton would be a good idea -- but then the question of his testimony will get mixed up in the fight for Republican witnesses[.]... I think Democrats would swap a Biden for Bolton. But an aggressive Republican move to subpoena a Trump wish list of witnesses will lead to a protracted fight, after which Republicans -- who are much better than Democrats at message discipline -- will say that no agreement could be reached because Democrats are afraid to hear witnesses. End of witness fight; end of trial."

~~~~~~~~~~

Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: Once John Bolton indicated he would testify before the Senate, the odds that he would get his story out, one way or another. went up. So ~~~

~~~ ** Maggie Haberman & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.... Mr. Bolton's explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump's impeachment trial ... was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books. Multiple people described Mr. Bolton's account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process ... to delay or even kill the book's publication or omit key passages." Read on. Bolton whacks Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and of course Giuliani. The Hill's summary report is here. ~~~

~~~ Noah Weiland of the New York Times outlines key takeaways from the draft of Bolton's book. Here's one: "The revelations from the draft of Mr. Bolton's book could complicate the impeachment trial.... Mr. Bolton's revelations could unearth support among ... a handful of [Republican] senators who have indicated they might be open to hearing from him.... If the Senate does vote to hear from Mr. Bolton, the trial could stretch deep into February." ~~~

~~~ Seung Min Kim & Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post: "Congressional Democrats called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in President Trump's impeachment trial following a new report that the president told Bolton last August that he wanted to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless it aided investigations into the Bidens.... In a joint statement, the seven House impeachment managers called the report 'explosive' and urged the Senate ... to agree to call Bolton as a witness in Trump's trial.... The revelation from the Bolton book was certain to roil the dynamics of the trial this week, when the Senate was expected to face a critical vote on whether to allow witnesses at all. Charles Cooper, a lawyer for Bolton, said he submitted the manuscript to the National Security Council's records management division on Dec. 30 for a standard review process to examine potentially classified information. Cooper said they believed the book manuscript did not include any classified material.... Sarah Tinsley, a spokeswoman for Bolton, added: 'The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period.'" Here's NBC News's story. ~~~

     ~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: So the White House has had Bolton's book for nearly four weeks, yet the lying lawyers defending Trump still got up before the Senate & claimed Trump's "real" purpose for withholding funds from Ukraine was over his deep concerns about general corruption in Ukraine.

~~~ Dan Nexon of LG&$: "... you should read the piece -- and then reflect on the fact that nothing matters, the Senate will acquit Trump, there's a good chance he'll be reelected, and everything is terrible. NB: think about the fact that Giuliani could've been a cabinet official, but he was seen as too compromised for this administration." ~~~

~~~ Adam Silverman of Balloon Juice has some thoughts worth considering. Here's one of them: "Bolton's real concern, according to Haberman's and Schmidt's reporting is that if he doesn't get to testify in the President's impeachment trial in the Senate, that people will think he's only interested in his personal profit.... Ambassador Bolton doesn't have to worry about [that].... That ship has sailed, got caught in a storm after leaving port, and has sunk. I'd call Ambassador Bolton a selfish, egomaniacal, megalomaniacal whore, but that would be insulting to selfish people, egomaniacs, megalomaniacs, and whores!" ~~~

~~~ ** Josh Marshall gets to the nub of it: "I think there is little chance -- but not no chance -- that this is will shift the equation on Senate Republicans voting to hear testimony from witnesses. But it is still important to note that during the trial we have a clear indication that the President's then-foreign policy chief says that his entire impeachment defense is bogus. But the biggest thing is we shouldn't lose track of what a disgrace this is. Bolton, as we've suspected, denied critical information to a lawful and constitutional judicial inquiry while making it available for what is at the end of the day a private business venture. There is just no conceivable justification for this from any, any perspective." ~~~

~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Besides, isn't this eleventh-hour ploy just a spectacular kickoff to Bolton's book tour? I mean, what's the last time a book draft was the NYT's top story? And the Times never quotes any passages from the book. Rather, if you want to know what Bolton actually wrote, you have to buy the book!* Ka-ching! Talk about drug deals. It also seems possible that Bolton a friend of Bolton's leaked the draft because Bolton was worried that the White House would hold onto the draft forevah, or at least until the money quotes had diminished in value -- like until after the November election.

     ~~~ * Update: Reserve your copy now!

Rebecca Klar of the Hill: Donald "Trump tweeted early Sunday morning that [Adam] Schiff, whom he called a 'CORRUPT POLITICIAN,' has 'not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!'... Schiff ... said Sunday that [the] tweet from the president is 'intended to be a threat." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~

~~~ Jeremy Schulman of Mother Jones: "Trump's tweet drew immediate outrage, with many suggesting it might incite violence against Schiff. 'What do you say to somebody who says, "President Trump is saying that Adam Schiff needs to pay a price -- this is in the midst of Adam Schiff getting death threats,"' asked CNN's Jake Tapper during an interview with GOP Sen. James Lankford (Okla.). 'I just don't think it's a death threat,' Lankford responded. 'People who are supporters of the president have heard his rhetoric and then actually tried to bomb and kill politicians and the media,' Tapper shot back -- a reference to Cesar Sayoc, a Trump supporter who last year pleaded guilty to mailing pipe bombs to prominent Democrats and CNN in 2018.... Trump didn't just call Schiff 'corrupt.' [In another tweet Sunday,] he called him a 'conman' who made a 'fraudulent statement to Congress.' And Trump once again accused Schiff of 'illegally making up my phone call.'... Trump's accusations are entirely meritless. Even if they weren't, it's incredibly unlikely that he'd succeed in suing, let along criminally prosecuting, Schiff -- members of Congress enjoy broad legal immunity for what they say in committee hearings."

Justine Coleman of the Hill: "Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Trump's legal team, said the Democrats 'completely failed' to meet the constitutional standard for removing Trump from office in their opening argument last week. Dershowitz told Chris Wallace on 'Fox News Sunday' that he thought the House managers presented the strongest case they could' but 'didn't come close to alleging impeachable offenses.' 'They completely failed to meet that high constitutional standard, and therefore it would be unconstitutional to remove a president based on the allegations that were made against him in the articles of impeachment,' he said." Mrs. McC: If you don't have the facts, make up something. If you don't have the law & the Constitution, make up something else. If you don't have the facts or the law, go on Fox "News." (Apologies to Carl Sandburg.) (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~

~~~ BUT Maybe Not on "Fox 'News' Sunday." Ken Meyer of Mediaite: "... Alan Dershowitz faced a bruising interview on Sunday when confronted with his abandoned position that a federal crime isn't necessary to form the legitimate basis to impeach the president.... As Dershowitz laid out the historical precedents he's using as the basis for his argument, Wallace called several of them into question before quoting Alexander Hamilton and George Mason arguing that the violation of a criminal statute 'is not essential to impeachment.'"

Paul Farhi of the Washington Post: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says an NPR host lied in setting up an interview with him on Friday, but email records support the journalist's account of how the contentious exchange came to be. The emails, obtained by The Washington Post, indicate that Pompeo's staff was aware that NPR's Mary Louise Kelly would ask Pompeo about several topics in the interview and raised no objections, contrary to Pompeo's characterization. In an extraordinary statement issued on State Department letterhead on Saturday, Pompeo blasted Kelly for repeatedly asking him why he refused to express support for the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.... 'NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly lied to me, twice.... First, last month, in setting up our interview and, then again yesterday, in agreeing to have our post-interview conversation off the record. It is shameful that this reporter chose to violate the basic rules of journalism and decency.' [In an exchange with Pompeo's press aide Katie Martin,] Kelly responded, 'I am indeed just back from Tehran and plan to start there. Also Ukraine.... I never agree to take anything off the table.'" ~~~

     ~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: You know that Bible you so proudly keep open on your desk, Mike? You should consult it from time to time on the many passages that warn against lying. Looks as if you're going to wind up "in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur." Seems fair to me.

This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this administration. It is no wonder that the American people distrust many in the media when they so consistently demonstrate their agenda and their absence of integrity. -- Mike Pompeo, in his statement Saturday, condemning NPR reporter Mary Kelly, et al. ~~~

~~~ Edward Wong of the New York Times: Pompeo's "statement ... ignited outrage online among foreign policy experts, scholars of diplomacy and press freedom advocates. Mr. Pompeo violated the goals and nonpartisan nature of his office, whose core mission is to promote American values worldwide, including freedom of the press, they said.... Mr. Pompeo has occasionally issued statements calling on authoritarian governments to respect press freedoms. But he has insulted journalists and has even cursed at diplomatic reporters in private meetings. His Saturday statement was notable for the public -- and broad -- denunciation of the news media.... Five Democratic senators sent a letter on Saturday to Mr. Pompeo denouncing his 'irresponsible' comments and the 'corrosive effects of your behavior on American values and standing in the world.'... For some, Mr. Pompeo's treatment of Ms. Kelly underlined a persistent hostility toward women." ~~~

~~~ ** Former Ambassador Bill Taylor takes another whack at Pompeo in this New York Times op-ed: "As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo prepares to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv later this week, he has reportedly asked, 'Do Americans care about Ukraine?' Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against Russian attack. No matter the outcome of the debate about the propriety of a phone call between the two presidents, the relationship between the United States and Ukraine is key to our national security. Americans should care about Ukraine. Russia is fighting a hybrid war against Ukraine, Europe and the United States." Worth reading every word. And worth knowing that the POTUS* doesn't give a flying fuck about any of it.

~~~ Max Boot in the Washington Post: Rex "Tillerson might not have known what he was doing once he left ExxonMobil, but he was at least ethical and well-intentioned -- and not afraid to stand up to President Trump.... [Mike Pompeo's] reward for being Trump's enabler is to amass far more influence than Tillerson ever did. Pompeo is the most powerful member of the Cabinet.... Pompeo has become a Trump mini-me who emulates his master in boorishness, bombast, bullying -- and dishonesty. Every day that Pompeo stays in office, he makes Tillerson -- once seen as the worst secretary of state ever -- look better by comparison. Pompeo has become a Trump mini-me who emulates his master in boorishness, bombast, bullying -- and dishonesty. Every day that Pompeo stays in office, he makes Tillerson -- once seen as the worst secretary of state ever -- look better by comparison."

Evan Semones of Politico: "Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's wife on Saturday appeared to publicly break with her husband over support for Greta Thunberg's climate change activism. 'I stand with Greta on this issue. (I don't have a degree in economics either),' actress Louise Linton wrote in a now-deleted Instagram post after Mnuchin chided the 17-year-old's call for governments to end their support of fossil fuels at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, saying she should attend college and study economics." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Mark Landler of the New York Times: Benjamin Netanyahu "will return to the White House for meetings Monday and Tuesday, and Mr. Trump is expected at last to lay out the details of that long-awaited plan. Mr. Netanyahu said Sunday he hoped to 'make history' on the visit. But far from a bold effort to bring old enemies together ... Middle East experts now expect the plan to be mainly a booster shot for Mr. Netanyahu's desperate campaign to stay in power. Benny Gantz, again Mr. Netanyahu's rival in Israel's third election in less than a year, will have his own separate meeting with Mr. Trump on Monday."

That's the way Jews work. They are deceivers. They plot, they lie, they do whatever they have to do to accomplish their political agenda. This 'Impeach Trump' movement is a Jew coup, and the American people better wake up to it really fast.... When Jews take over a country, they kill millions of Christians. -- Rick Wiles, founder of TruNews & a Trump fave, in a radio broadcast ~~~

~~~ Michael Grynbaum of the New York Times: "Five employees of TruNews ... received formal credentials from the White House to cover the president's trip [last week to Davos, Switzerland, TruNews founder Rick] Wiles said in an interview last week from his hotel room in Switzerland -- a room in a ski lodge reserved by the Trump administration for traveling members of the American press.... TruNews, a website aimed at conservative Christians ... recently described Mr. Trump's impeachment as 'a Jew coup' planned by 'a Jewish cabal.'... TruNews, which Mr. Wiles ... has a history of spreading conspiracy theories and proclaiming an imminent apocalypse." After Jonathan Karl, president of the White House Correspondent's Association, said he was "puzzled" as to why the White House credentialed a "hate group" after it had denied credentials to Jim Acosta of CNN, "Mr. Wiles ... said that he had been unfairly attacked by 'the self-appointed gods and goddesses of the news media....' He went on to blame George Soros, the Jewish financier often cited in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, for coordinating a campaign against him." Wiles says he bears "no ill will toward the Jewish people."

Comments

[MAG]

Wonder if David Leonhardt (NYT) was following our discussion earlier this week on RC:

He writes: Iowa Should Never Go First Again, The current system is a form of white privilege that warps the process.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/opinion/iowa-new-hampshire-primary.html

[Marie Burns]

@MAG: The one upside I see to having these whitey-white states go first is that they may lean toward candidates who have more crossover appeal; i.e., are more conservative. This is probably more true of Iowa than of New Hampshire, where I suspect the Democratic vote runs strongly toward people who "immigrated" to N.H. from Massachusetts (and all those who still live in Massachusetts but get bussed into N.H., according to our Dear Leader).

But I do agree with Julián Castro, who said Democrats can’t "complain about Republicans suppressing the votes of people of color, and then begin our nominating contest in two states that hardly have people of color.”

The big problem I see with Iowa is that it discriminates against people who don't have time or means to spend hours at a caucus. To get around this, they also have some kind of "virtual caucus" this year, but that promises to be a fiasco.

Still, Iowa Democratic caucus-goers were either color-blind in 2008 or misogynists: Obama won (Hillary Clinton came in third, just behind Edwards). Clinton edged out Obama in N.H., but by such a small margin that they ended up with the same number of delegates to the convention. Of course all three of them were centrist candidates, not a Bernie-type firebrand in the bunch.

[Akhilleus]

Wait. Jonathan Karl, ABC News’ House Republican mole/apparatchik in “puzzled” as to why the Trump “administration” welcomes hate groups as legitimate news operations? Where has he been?

No sentient being who has been paying even a sliver of attention to the Trump Crime Family over the years can be scratching their head over this.

The Trump “administration” IS a hate group. The Republican Party is a hate group. The whole operation runs on hate. Trump would still be a C level celebrity and failed con artist without hate. He trucks in hate the way Fox and Breitbart manufacture lies. It’s a function of state for them. Has he never seen the spittle flecked, eye bulging hatred that pumps up the MAGA zombies at a Trump hate and lie rally?

Jesus, Jonathan.

[Ken Winkes]

Or another way of putting it, Akhilleus, is that hate coming from the Pretender or from today's R's is not news; ergo anyone peddling it is by definition not a news organization and should be otherwise credentialed and housed in separate quarters.

[Ken Winkes]

This one would have fit better yesterday, on Sunday. Sorry I missed it then, but don't want to withhold the amusement it offers for another six days...

https://www.boomlive.in/fake-news/has-iceland-declared-religion-as-a-mental-disorder-6667

[Jeanne]

I am also a hate group. I hate the presidunce, his family, the current Secy. of State, and on down the line. As the UCC bumper sticker proclaims, ...No exceptions...

I also am a love group. Luv that group of Dems from the House, who were fabulous (not that it will matter--)last week, and especially the unflappable Adam Schiff.

[PD Pepe]

The backlash on Pompeo made me get up and do a little jig–-bestest of news, yessiree! and this: " For some, Mr. Pompeo’s treatment of Ms. Kelly underlined a persistent hostility toward women.” Aw, come on, Mike always has that smile, that bonhomie kind of thing going on, who would guess it's only for the male population. I think it has to do more with power––"how dare a sniffling NPR lady reporter puts pressure on me––how dare she!"

Loved Ak's dressing down of Karl: although for many who find this news, they may well find the fact that Trump himself hates anyone who has his number and is brave enough to call him on it, electrifying. Some folks come late to the party but once there settle in nicely.

So with the Bolton book news out we continue today with our circus; still holding on to a wee hope of having witnesses.

[Marie Burns]

@PD Pepe: Yeah, I remember how Mike lambasted Hillary at the marathon Benghaaazi! hearing (and later in a report). At the time, I thought it was GOP politics as usual, but I see now that there was a topping of misogyny.

Say, can't the House managers just subpoena the publisher to acquire a copy of the draft of Bolton's book? I mean, send out a guy in a uniform and have him hand the publisher a subpoena & pick up a copy of the manuscript right then and there? Then managers can read out the relevant parts during the impeachment proceedings in answer to prepared questions from Democratic senators -- if Republicans won't allow Bolton to testify.

I almost don't care if Bolton & others testify: it's now clear to anyone with a functioning brain that Senate Republicans are part of the vast conspiracy to obstruct the impeachment proceedings. Even if Bolton does testify, Republican senators -- maybe all of them -- will vote to acquit. Knocking themselves out to hide the evidence only makes them look worse.

[Ken Winkes]

Here's a thought:

Maybe the Pretender could invite his buddy Mr. Wiles to meet with his other buddy Bibi and the two of them could sit down together, exchange a few pleasantries and then work out the deal of the century that Jarad hasn't quite managed.

[Akhilleus]

Funny how Trump's many offenses against (pick one: rule of law, the Constitution, the United States, women, minorities, decency, truth, morality, humanity...) seem to come to the fore surrounded by contextual events that carefully limn his obscene depravity.

So today we have an article pointing out the special treatment afforded by Trump to his pal Rick Wiles, an anti-Semite like you read about (one who, very much like Trump, tries to escape the implications of his own words, with zero success: Jews are great deceivers, they plot, they lie, they take over nations and murder millions of Christians! Aiiieeee!...but he bears Jews no ill will. How Trumpian...), appearing on the very day of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp run by the Nazis (Trump thinks their descendants are pretty okay too).

I'm betting more than a few of those Auschwitz Nazis would have said they bore Jews no ill will too.

But Republicans shrug it all off. No big deal. Besides that George Soros...we all know all about THOSE people, right?

[Akhilleus]

Full agreement with both Marie and Steve M. about witnesses.

Forget that fight. Democrats will lose, and as Steve M. points out, because they are not nearly the backstabbing rat-fucking dirty fighters that Republicans are, they may knuckle under to R demands for Hunter Biden (or both Bidens and maybe their pet dog) to "testify", even though this trial has fuck all to do with the Bidens outside of Trump trying to screw Joe. This would be disastrous, but Democrats are famous for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. I'm not suggesting that they're going to win this impeachment fight, the corrupt Turtle has it in the bag, but at least to this point, they haven't committed any unforced errors. Agreeing to a Biden-Bolton witness swap would be a huge one. They would, in effect, be agreeing that R's have a point.

They don't.

Second, Marie's suggestion that they rely on Bolton's draft, is an excellent idea (again, none of this will matter. The trial is rigged, the jury bought off with Fidget Spinners--self-respect comes cheap these days). No, they won't win, but like a good attorney, they at least get the new information read into evidence and they'll force the R's and the corrupt Turtle to ignore blatantly obvious, clearly incriminating evidence by one of their own and vote against the absolute truth of the matter, that Fatty is a lying traitor who abused his power then tried to cover it up.

Plus, getting Bolton to testify could prolong the proceedings. My sense at this point is to let Fatty and the Turtle and the snivelling R traitors give the whole thing the bum's rush. Dragging it out into March will short-circuit the claim (true) that R's don't care about a careful examination of the evidence. They're gonna acquit the creep. Let them.

This gives Democrats running for president some (more) ammunition against the Orange Menace.

[Akhilleus]

As much as I despise the Turtle and Fatty and Graham, at least they are committed traitors. What's worse than a committed traitor? A traitor who pretends she really doesn't want to screw the country, because she's really a decent person, but can't help it because, oh dear, something, something, something.

Jesus, Susan Collins, if you're gonna fuck us, again, at least have the decency to not pretend you don't enjoy it (like you did during your backstabbing Kavanaugh vote).

If a homeless person dumpster diving in Portland at this very minute were to run against Collins, I'd move to Maine to vote for them.

[Ken Winkes]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration-idUSKBN1ZQ24N

Whadda bunch of conservative crap!

As I remember, I suggested once before that public burdens like corporations dirtectly subsidized by the federal government or pay no taxes (a subsidy in itself) or benefit from a program like the oil depletion allowance, or avail themselves of cost-plus government contracts should also have their green cards revoked.

My rule would also apply to the states and other entities which offer tax incentives for businesses to set up shop or stay (thinking of the Boeing extortion scheme here) in their states.

[Akhilleus]

Talk about dissembling and crap...

So I turned on the Lie-a-Thon for a few minutes here and there today and here's what I heard:

Rudy Giuliani is a genius and a great patriot.

Gaaachhh...

Later I heard the classic Trump-loving confederate giveaway: "Let's look at the facts!"

Hahahahahahahahahaahahahaha...

Yeah, and next we'll explain how Fatty's surprise incursions into the dressing rooms of half-naked 15 year old girls at pubescent beauty pageants he sponsored (and what the fuck is that all about anyway??) had more to do with his concern for their well-being and not in any way, no-how, an attempt to ogle children in the altogether.

You know how confederates love to hang Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein over the heads of liberals (because Hollywood = liberal)? Trump is no different. And if he were a Democrat, they would all be screeching for the gas chamber, never mind impeachment. But he's one of theirs, so grabbing pussies and little girls is perfectly okay.

The hypocrisy is riveting.

As the apologists for treason love to say, "Let's look at the facts". Nope, let's not. They couldn't stand it. Not actual facts. Let's look at invented bullshit instead.