Trump was willing to gamble even with the health and lives of his closest aides and donors. Why would anyone believe he has their best interests at heart?
Received a very angry email from a man rejecting the idea that people would want to immigrate to the United States from countries where their lives were unpleasant.
He lives in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Lindsey Graham just falsely told a bunch of reporters that Democrats are never subjected to accusations of sexual misconduct, and warned them that if Kavanaugh fails, Republicans will gin up false accusations against future Democratic nominees to even the score. Wow.
“All of the Zoomers that work for me are bisexual, and all of them have long covid,” Sean McElwee said. “I’ll believe long covid is real when someone who is not bisexual has it.”
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.
To believe there was ever a genuine interest in Burisma separate from the Bidens requires believing that Trump had a specific knowledge about a particular company in a country he's otherwise shown little interest in, with a level of specificity he shows in almost nothing
Why did so many rioters push into the Capitol, a place crawling with photojournalists and reporters, and proudly give interviews, offer their names, and take selfies? Did they really think they'd get away with it?
I think yes:
Grassley praises Bill Barr's answers during confirmation pledging not to interfere with Mueller; he complains that Garland is being less direct. Grassley ignores that Barr *did in fact stifle Mueller*, despite those following the letter of those answers.
I'm not clear what people expect. Woodward's sources talked to him on condition of anonymity for a reason (or reasons). Now that the book is out, do people expect them to suddenly say, "Yep, you're right, I said that"?
Woodward also said it “happens frequently” that a source will publicly deny something the source told the author - and suggested authors understand that sources have to.
@amieparnes
and I can attest to that.
BREAKING No one will be convicted in Durham Confederate statue destruction in August.
Durham DA Roger Echols announces he's dismissing charges against 5 charged in tearing down monument. Two were dismissed Monday and a third acquitted.
An interesting election Tuesday that's gotten less attention: David Clarke's successor as Milwaukee County sheriff was roundly trounced by a reformist, progressive challenger:
In 2016, J.D. Vance called Trumpism "cultural heroin." Since then, h’s decided that Trump’s cultural heroin is too powerful to resist, so he might as well become a dealer.
Can't emphasize enough:
The FBI does background checks, but the White House can do whatever it wants with those, and is under no obligation to follow the FBI's recommendation
"At the G7, there are two different summits under way—one that’s happening in President Trump’s mind, and another that is actually happening on the ground; there’s the summit Trump is trying to will into existence, and the summit unfolding in real time."
The murders are no more or less reprehensible based on the shooter's motives. Yet labeling the press "enemies of the people" is also no more or less acceptable based on the shooter's motives.
The weird thing about this line of argument is that all of the testimony so far agrees, whereas Trump and his allies still haven't put forth any serious, evidence-based counter-narrative. Trump continues to just argue that what he did was "perfect," not that he didn't do it.
"What I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people."
The Dems' star witness just said he had no firsthand knowledge and is relying on hearsay for his testimony today.
So why are we still here? Time to end this pointless charade.
Trump said the Justice Department had broken an unwritten rule against prosecuting a former president.
��You just don’t, unless it’s really bad,” Trump said. He had unwittingly delivered the most illuminating commentary of the day.
It has long been possible for some of Trump’s supporters to figure that while he is disdainful of his base, he respects them. The reckless disregard he has shown even for his closest aides and donors this week should dispel that impression.
Much of the consternation among Democrats on the floor seems to be that there is a rule that prevents calling someone a racist. Lots of chatter between the parliamentarians office and Dems about this.
“I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States,” Trump said.
He believes he should be exempt from the same rule of law that applies to everyone else.
1. "Privately." It's always private
2. How many times have we seen Republicans recoil in horror from something Trump says or does, then wait a moment and test the air, then quietly slink back to his side?
“privately, many house Republicans are stunned by some of the new revelations... One lawmaker texted me and said he saw enough of the hearing that he wanted to throw his lunch against the wall”