crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Martha McSally Is A Trump Hack

Martha McSally Is A Trump Hack

The Lincoln Project puts out another brutal ad against an endangered Republican Senator who hitched her wagon to Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ ( www.lincolnproject.us ) released its fourth digital video , “ Martha McSally , Trump Hack @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ’ s sycophantic relationship .
“ Martha McSally is known for being a @ @ @ @ @ Jennifer Horn , spokesperson for The Lincoln Project .
“ But Arizona is known for @ @ @ @ @ principled leaders like John McCain and Barry Goldwater .
Arizonans clearly see who Martha McSally @ @ @ @ @ Trump hack.
” Sen. McSally is currently trying to hold onto her unelected Senate seat @ @ @ @ @ polls above her .
In 2018 , she was appointed to serve in Sen. John @ @ @ @ @ interim Sen. Jon Kyl retired in 2019 .

The Lincoln Project puts out another brutal ad against an endangered Republican Senator who hitched her wagon to Trump.
Source: Lincoln Project press release
Today, The Lincoln Project (www.lincolnproject.us) released its fourth digital video, “Martha McSally, Trump Hack” highlighting Martha McSally and Donald Trump’s sycophantic relationship.
“Martha McSally is known for being a Trump hack,” said Jennifer Horn, spokesperson for The Lincoln Project. “But Arizona is known for strong, independent leadership from principled leaders like John McCain and Barry Goldwater. Arizonans clearly see who Martha McSally truly is—an unprincipled and unelected Trump hack.”
Sen. McSally is currently trying to hold onto her unelected Senate seat as Democrat Mark Kelly consistently polls above her. In 2018, she was appointed to serve in Sen. John McCain’s seat when interim Sen. Jon Kyl retired in 2019.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Triggered Trump Whines ‘Beginning Of The End For Fox’ After Dem Senator Argues For Witnesses

Donald Trump was triggered Tuesday morning when Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen told viewers that “ all the momentum ” is now in favor of calling witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial .
Although Trump ’ s tweets below show what a thin-skinned coward he is , they also show that he is attempting to bully Fox News into even more sycophantic coverage : Apparently , the Van Hollen interview that set Trump ’ s tiny Twitter fingers a-twitching was on today ’ s America ’ s Newsroom ( below ) .
On that show , which airs from 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for Chief Justice John Roberts to adjudicate the issue of calling witnesses and which ones .
Never mind that anchors Ed Henry and Sandra Smith pushed Republican talking points throughout the 10-minute interview .
Neither questioned why Republicans would not want to hear from witnesses such as John Bolton , who has made clear that he has relevant information to share .
No , “ straight news ” anchor Ed Henry pushed the GOP whataboutism , “ asking ” about Hunter Biden ’ s job at Ukraine ’ s Burisma , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Henry also sneaked into his question about the possibility of witnesses a gratuitous comment that witnesses would cause the trial to “ drag on now for at least a couple more weeks.
” Smith pushed the Fox/GOP talking point that Democrats should have gotten Bolton ’ s and other witness testimony during the House impeachment investigation , without noting that Trump had blocked them .
Fortunately , Van Hollen pushed back on all those talking points nicely .
Trump must have noticed .
Trump ’ s attack on Chris Wallace suggests he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Shepard Smith was .
As Mediaite noted , yesterday Wallace had a contentious exchange with Fox ’ s Katie Pavlich when she tried to promote false Republican talking points .
“ Get your facts straight , ” Wallace snapped , as he corrected her .
Unfortunately for Trump , Wallace , anchor of Fox ’ s prestigious Fox News Sunday , is unlikely to get the heave ho .
But should he decide to leave , Wallace will undoubtedly have many opportunities elsewhere .
As Smith has .
As for Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Shep Smith doing ?
” let ’ s compare where each of them is in a few years .
You can watch the innocuous segment that triggered Trump below , from the January 28 , 2020 America ’ s Newsroom .

Donald Trump was triggered Tuesday morning when Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen told viewers that “all the momentum” is now in favor of calling witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial.
Although Trump’s tweets below show what a thin-skinned coward he is, they also show that he is attempting to bully Fox News into even more sycophantic coverage:
Really pathetic how @FoxNews is trying to be so politically correct by loading the airwaves with Democrats like Chris Van Hollen, the no name Senator from Maryland. He has been on forever playing up the Impeachment Hoax. Dems wouldn’t even give Fox their low ratings debates.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 28, 2020
.....So, what the hell has happened to @FoxNews. Only I know! Chris Wallace and others should be on Fake News CNN or MSDNC. How’s Shep Smith doing? Watch, this will be the beginning of the end for Fox, just like the other two which are dying in the ratings. Social Media is great! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 28, 2020
Apparently, the Van Hollen interview that set Trump’s tiny Twitter fingers a-twitching was on today’s America’s Newsroom (below). On that show, which airs from 9 AM - Noon ET, Van Hollen called for Chief Justice John Roberts to adjudicate the issue of calling witnesses and which ones.
Never mind that anchors Ed Henry and Sandra Smith pushed Republican talking points throughout the 10-minute interview. Neither questioned why Republicans would not want to hear from witnesses such as John Bolton, who has made clear that he has relevant information to share. No, “straight news” anchor Ed Henry pushed the GOP whataboutism, “asking” about Hunter Biden’s job at Ukraine’s Burisma, “Has that ever been looked at?” Henry also sneaked into his question about the possibility of witnesses a gratuitous comment that witnesses would cause the trial to “drag on now for at least a couple more weeks.”
Smith pushed the Fox/GOP talking point that Democrats should have gotten Bolton’s and other witness testimony during the House impeachment investigation, without noting that Trump had blocked them.
Fortunately, Van Hollen pushed back on all those talking points nicely. Trump must have noticed.
Trump’s attack on Chris Wallace suggests he wants Wallace to get pushed out, like Shepard Smith was. As Mediaite noted, yesterday Wallace had a contentious exchange with Fox’s Katie Pavlich when she tried to promote false Republican talking points. “Get your facts straight,” Wallace snapped, as he corrected her.
Unfortunately for Trump, Wallace, anchor of Fox’s prestigious Fox News Sunday, is unlikely to get the heave ho. But should he decide to leave, Wallace will undoubtedly have many opportunities elsewhere. As Smith has.
As for Trump’s bullyboy question, “How’s Shep Smith doing?” let’s compare where each of them is in a few years.
You can watch the innocuous segment that triggered Trump below, from the January 28, 2020 America’s Newsroom.
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Published with permission of Newshounds.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Sen. Whitehouse Stuns Bill Hemmer With Assessment Of Dershowitz's Arguments

Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer did not order what Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse served up in their discussion about Trump 's defense team on impeachment .
Specifically , Hemmer asked Sen. Whitehouse about Alan Dershowitz — once a revered constitutional scholar and legal mind — and the arguments Dershowitz laid out in defense of Trump 's behavior regarding extortion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
Not quite sure what Hemmer expected out of Sen. Whitehouse , since the Dersh is just one of many hypocrites who have completely reversed themselves on matters of impeachment and Russia , but it clearly was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : What did you think of Alan Dershowitz 's argument last night about the abuse of power ?
He said abuse of power throughout American political history is an accusation .
SEN. WHITEHOUSE : He started off on a bad note , because he told us that the standard we had to meet as senators was proof beyond a reasonable doubt which every senator knows is wrong .
So that did n't get him off to a very good start .
Then when he started talking about how this had to be criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yes , he 'd said the opposite before , and that yes , the weight of current authority is completely against him , and then he turned on himself and said we should n't be looking at the president 's intent , when in any criminal case , intent is at the heart of the proceedings .
So , that you get the heads of all the prosecutors in the room , they snapped up as he said that , because it made no sense .
HEMMER : So , I take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments .
A few other things .
SEN. WHITEHOUSE : No , actually I thought It was embarrassing .
SEN. WHITEHOUSE : I thought so , it was really unfortunate .
Hemmer sat for a moment , stunned , before he took a breath and changed the subject .
Unfortunately , that 's what happens too often on Earth 2 .
When presented with hard truths in unvarnished , clear language , the only allowable option is to change direction .

Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer did not order what Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse served up in their discussion about Trump's defense team on impeachment. Specifically, Hemmer asked Sen. Whitehouse about Alan Dershowitz — once a revered constitutional scholar and legal mind — and the arguments Dershowitz laid out in defense of Trump's behavior regarding extortion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Not quite sure what Hemmer expected out of Sen. Whitehouse, since the Dersh is just one of many hypocrites who have completely reversed themselves on matters of impeachment and Russia, but it clearly wasn't the answer he got.
HEMMER: What did you think of Alan Dershowitz's argument last night about the abuse of power? He said abuse of power throughout American political history is an accusation. SEN. WHITEHOUSE: He started off on a bad note, because he told us that the standard we had to meet as senators was proof beyond a reasonable doubt which every senator knows is wrong. So that didn't get him off to a very good start. Then when he started talking about how this had to be criminal law, he had to reflect that, yes, he'd said the opposite before, and that yes, the weight of current authority is completely against him, and then he turned on himself and said we shouldn't be looking at the president's intent, when in any criminal case, intent is at the heart of the proceedings. So, that you get the heads of all the prosecutors in the room, they snapped up as he said that, because it made no sense. HEMMER: So, I take it you weren't convinced by his arguments. A few other things. SEN. WHITEHOUSE: No, actually I thought It was embarrassing. HEMMER: Wow. Alan Dershowitz's presentation was embarrassing? SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I thought so, it was really unfortunate.
Hemmer sat for a moment, stunned, before he took a breath and changed the subject. Unfortunately, that's what happens too often on Earth 2. When presented with hard truths in unvarnished, clear language, the only allowable option is to change direction.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--WATCH LIVE:  Senate Impeachment Trial For Wednesday, January 29

The president 's Senate impeachment trial is moving into a new phase after six days of opening statements .
Senators @ @ @ @ @ written question phase .
Here 's the card they 're given for their questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ KFIAlex @ KFIAM640 pic.twitter.com/wuWP2y76MX

Can you help us out?
For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Rudy Giuliani Attacks John Bolton As A 'Backstabber' And 'Swamp Character'

Who you gon na believe : your own eyes and ears , or the lies of lying liar Rudy Giuliani ?
Rudy Giuliani agreed to be interviewed by Catherine Herridge , former Fox News hack who now works for CBS .
I guess John Dickerson was not available ?
Or maybe Rudy was afraid to talk to anyone who was not associated with Trump 's state TV network .
Rudy 's attacks against Bolton -- himself a former Fox News analyst and Trump national security advisor -- stem from the ridiculous idea that John Bolton never told him personally that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ukraine .
Catherine dutifully asked Giuliani if John Bolton `` asked him to shut down his investigation into Ukraine ? ''
Rudy then stuck to his story that he was only investigating corruption in Ukraine at Trump 's behest .
Hard to say if Rudy thinks anyone believes that lie or he says it because he 's run out of any other excuse .
Every witness that has come forward to the House of Representatives and to the media have confirmed and exposed Giuliani 's shadow government and his efforts to smear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival ( Joe Biden ) in the upcoming election .
At least Herridge told the audience that there is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens .
Of course , that means nothing to rat Fokker 's like Rudy .
Rudy changed the subject as he always does and said Bolton `` never came to me and said I have a problem with what you 're doing in Ukraine ... never once never winked ... never sent me a little note ... '' '' That 's classic backstabbing , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job at all .
Bolton told every White House staffer who came to him with ethical questions about the Ukraine mess to talk to White House counsel .
He knew it was wrong and correctly advised his colleagues to cover their anatomy by documenting their issues with counsel .
Rudy continued portraying Bolton , who was revered in conservative and Republican circles his entire career , as a `` swamp character . ''
And then he called Bolton 's testimony , even though there has been no testimony from the former NSA because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as `` pretty incredible . ''
The only swamp character is Rudy Giuliani .
Rudy tried to subvert the Constitution of the United States in an effort to have Trump illegally prevail in the 2020 presidential election .
Rudy should be disbarred and never be allowed to practice law again .

Who you gonna believe: your own eyes and ears, or the lies of lying liar Rudy Giuliani?
Rudy Giuliani agreed to be interviewed by Catherine Herridge, former Fox News hack who now works for CBS. I guess John Dickerson was not available? Or maybe Rudy was afraid to talk to anyone who was not associated with Trump's state TV network.
Rudy's attacks against Bolton -- himself a former Fox News analyst and Trump national security advisor -- stem from the ridiculous idea that John Bolton never told him personally that he was a "hand grenade" in Ukraine.
Catherine dutifully asked Giuliani if John Bolton "asked him to shut down his investigation into Ukraine?"
Rudy replied, "No."
Rudy then stuck to his story that he was only investigating corruption in Ukraine at Trump's behest. Hard to say if Rudy thinks anyone believes that lie or he says it because he's run out of any other excuse.
Every witness that has come forward to the House of Representatives and to the media have confirmed and exposed Giuliani's shadow government and his efforts to smear what Trump believed was his biggest political rival (Joe Biden) in the upcoming election.
At least Herridge told the audience that there is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens. Of course, that means nothing to rat Fokker's like Rudy.
Rudy changed the subject as he always does and said Bolton "never came to me and said I have a problem with what you're doing in Ukraine... never once never winked... never sent me a little note..."
"That's classic backstabbing," he said.
That's not Bolton's job at all. Bolton told every White House staffer who came to him with ethical questions about the Ukraine mess to talk to White House counsel. He knew it was wrong and correctly advised his colleagues to cover their anatomy by documenting their issues with counsel.
Rudy continued portraying Bolton, who was revered in conservative and Republican circles his entire career, as a "swamp character."
And then he called Bolton's testimony, even though there has been no testimony from the former NSA because Trump refuses to allow Bolton to testify, as "pretty incredible."
The only swamp character is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy tried to subvert the Constitution of the United States in an effort to have Trump illegally prevail in the 2020 presidential election.
Rudy should be disbarred and never be allowed to practice law again.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Republicans In Disarray!  Trump Vs. McConnell Edition

President Donald Trump fired off a pair of tweets Tuesday night ranting about what he called the `` impeachment hoax '' and `` political con job '' shortly after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly admitted in a closed-door meeting with GOP lawmakers that he does n't have the votes to stop witnesses from being called to testify in the ongoing trial .
`` No matter how many witnesses you give the Democrats , no matter how much information is given , like the quickly produced Transcripts , it will NEVER be enough for them , '' Trump tweeted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' In a separate tweet hours later , Trump asked why former national security adviser John Bolton—the most prominent potential witness with first-hand knowledge of the president 's actions—did n't `` complain about this 'nonsense ' a long time ago , when he was very publicly terminated . ''
Bolton alleges in an unpublished book manuscript that Trump said he wanted to withhold congressionally approved aid to Ukraine until that country agreed to launch investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter .
The president 's tweets came after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he lacks the votes to continue blocking witnesses for the Senate trial , stonewalling that Democratic lawmakers and other critics have described as a cover-up .
Just four Senate Republicans would have to vote with Democrats to approve witnesses .
`` He 's desperate , '' Rep. Eric Swalwell ( D-Calif. ) wrote in response to Trump 's tweets , urging the public to continue calling GOP senators who could vote to call witnesses .
According to the Wall Street Journal , McConnell told Republicans following the final day of presentations from Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total was n't where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents . ''
`` He had a card with 'yes , ' 'no , ' and 'maybes ' marked on it , apparently a whip count , but he did n't show it to senators , '' the Journal reported .
A vote to approve witnesses for the Senate trial is expected to take place Friday .
`` The pressure is working , '' declared progressive advocacy group Indivisible , which has been driving calls Republican senators .
`` This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton and the other witnesses who know exactly how egregious Trump 's abuse of power was . ''
`` This is no time to ease up—keep calling every day until the vote , '' the group added .

President Donald Trump fired off a pair of tweets Tuesday night ranting about what he called the "impeachment hoax" and "political con job" shortly after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly admitted in a closed-door meeting with GOP lawmakers that he doesn't have the votes to stop witnesses from being called to testify in the ongoing trial.
"No matter how many witnesses you give the Democrats, no matter how much information is given, like the quickly produced Transcripts, it will NEVER be enough for them," Trump tweeted. "They will always scream UNFAIR."
In a separate tweet hours later, Trump asked why former national security adviser John Bolton—the most prominent potential witness with first-hand knowledge of the president's actions—didn't "complain about this 'nonsense' a long time ago, when he was very publicly terminated."
Bolton alleges in an unpublished book manuscript that Trump said he wanted to withhold congressionally approved aid to Ukraine until that country agreed to launch investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
The president's tweets came after McConnell reportedly told fellow Republican senators that he lacks the votes to continue blocking witnesses for the Senate trial, stonewalling that Democratic lawmakers and other critics have described as a cover-up. Just four Senate Republicans would have to vote with Democrats to approve witnesses.
"He's desperate," Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) wrote in response to Trump's tweets, urging the public to continue calling GOP senators who could vote to call witnesses.
He’s desperate. Keep calling:
Senator Pat Toomey (202) 224-4254
Senator Rob Portman (202) 224-3353
Senator Mitt Romney (202) 224-5251
Senator Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Senator Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Senator Lamar Alexander (202) 224-4944 https://t.co/Yaf2uucnJ7 — Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) January 29, 2020
According to the Wall Street Journal, McConnell told Republicans following the final day of presentations from Trump's defense team that the "vote total wasn't where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents."
"He had a card with 'yes,' 'no,' and 'maybes' marked on it, apparently a whip count, but he didn't show it to senators," the Journal reported. A vote to approve witnesses for the Senate trial is expected to take place Friday.
"The pressure is working," declared progressive advocacy group Indivisible, which has been driving calls Republican senators. "This is huge. We need to hear from Bolton and the other witnesses who know exactly how egregious Trump's abuse of power was."
"This is no time to ease up—keep calling every day until the vote," the group added.
Republished from Common Dreams (Jake Johnson, staff writer) under a Creative Commons License.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Book Giveaway Benefits Montana Democrat:  Successful Aging

A little less than 2 weeks ago , the House passed H.R .
1230 , Bobby Scott 's Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act .
Every single Democrat plus 34 Republicans voted for it .
Who could possibly be against protecting older workers from discrimination ?
Well , let 's start with the 154 Republicans who voted against it , including the entire GOP House leadership , as well as extreme ideologues like Ken Calvert , Devin Nunes , Lee Zeldin , Greg Gianforte to mention a few .
And then there 's Mitch McConnell , who is refusing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , calling it `` socialist . ''
Where does this opposition to older workers come from ?
Dan Levitin is a distinguished neuroscientist , psychology professor and author .
His new book , Successful Aging was released Dutton last week .
More about the book in a moment .
While Dan and I were corresponding about H.R .
1230 , he wrote that State Rep. Tom Winter is a progressive Democrat running for Montana 's one statewide congressional seat .
He told me he 's well aware that our society ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth and class disparities .
`` People all over the country talk about the idea of the 'New West ' -- cities like Bozeman or Missoula or Boulder or Boise -- that are driving growth and attracting new residents .
But that growth is fundamentally unequal in so many ways .
The hallmark of rural Montana beyond those growing cities is an aging population , and we need a politics , and a worldview , that responds to the needs of older adults and values the contributions they can make .
We must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger workers .
To do that is to perpetuate our society ’ s ageism and increase the inequality of opportunity in rural communities across my state and the country . ''
Dan wrote that his research reveals that our societal narrative about aging is false and out of date .
The book 's premise is that old age need not be a time of decline and irrelevance , but rather , a time of increased creativity , improvement in problem-solving skills , and full of meaning .
He explodes several myths including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myth of old age depression .
He wrote that `` Across 72 countries the peak age of happiness is 82 . ''
He 's hoping that the book will help change the conversation and he 's trying to make the point that agism is one of the last biases that we tolerate in society .
As he said above , it 's difficult for older adults to get a job or get promoted .
Two-thirds of American workers said they had witnessed or experienced age discrimination at work .
`` Employers should recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart business , '' he wrote , `` not just a feel-good , charitable act .
Multigenerational teams with older members tend to be more productive ; older adults boost the productivity of those around them , and such teams outperform single-generational ones . ''
Singer/songwriter Rosanne Cash wrote that Successful Aging `` is the book I need now .
This is probably the book you need now .
Levitin beautifully weaves hard science with more subtle , subjective agents of change -- compassion , friendship , the redemptive power of work -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us navigating the penultimate stage of life . ''
Dan gave me three autographed copies of Successful Aging to help in our efforts to raise some contributions for Tom Winter 's campaign .
It does n't matter how much you contribute but any contribution that comes in for Tom on this page or at the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer on the right , before Wednesday 1/29 at 6pm ( PT ) will give you a chance to win one of the autographed books .
We 're going to select three winners at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in Montana and you do n't have to be an older voter .
Anyone can give it a try .
Tom 's a great candidate anyway and you can read more about him on his own website here .
His campaign is fueled by issues like Medicare for All , the Green New Deal , expanding labor rights , housing for all and criminal justice reform .

A little less than 2 weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1230, Bobby Scott's Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Every single Democrat plus 34 Republicans voted for it.
Who could possibly be against protecting older workers from discrimination? Well, let's start with the 154 Republicans who voted against it, including the entire GOP House leadership, as well as extreme ideologues like Ken Calvert, Devin Nunes, Lee Zeldin, Greg Gianforte to mention a few. And then there's Mitch McConnell, who is refusing to even allow a debate and vote in the Senate, calling it "socialist." Where does this opposition to older workers come from?
Dan Levitin is a distinguished neuroscientist, psychology professor and author. His new book, Successful Aging was released Dutton last week. More about the book in a moment. While Dan and I were corresponding about H.R. 1230, he wrote that
"In 2020, it is clear that we still find a great deal of bigotry and repression again our fellow citizens. Fortunately, most of the 'isms' have become part of the national conversation: racism, sexism, prejudice against LGBTQ individuals, members of various religions and countries. One pernicious and insidious form of bigotry persists without any significant organized national conversation: agism. It is desperately hard for someone over the age of 55 to receive a promotion or be hired into a new job. With the extraordinary advances in health and medical science, we’re not just living longer than ever, but healthier than ever. For the first time, there are more Americans over 65 than under 5. And neuroscience research is clear that continuing to work into our 80s and beyond is neuroprotective, helping to fend off Alzheimer’s and a range of diseases. As our societal narrative tends to marginalize older adults, it has not kept pace with scientific developments. Older adults have superior problem solving and pattern matching skills, tend to be more compassionate and tolerant, and to find solutions that elude their younger counterparts. What would it mean to treat older adults as a resource rather than a burden? It would mean harnessing the wisdom and compassion of a growing segment of the population whom we have tended to marginalize. Working older adults would continue to contribute to social security rather than drawing from it."
State Rep. Tom Winter is a progressive Democrat running for Montana's one statewide congressional seat. He told me he's well aware that our society’s ageism is a silent enforcer of wealth and class disparities.
"People all over the country talk about the idea of the 'New West'-- cities like Bozeman or Missoula or Boulder or Boise-- that are driving growth and attracting new residents. But that growth is fundamentally unequal in so many ways. The hallmark of rural Montana beyond those growing cities is an aging population, and we need a politics, and a worldview, that responds to the needs of older adults and values the contributions they can make. We must stop viewing economic growth as keyed to younger workers. To do that is to perpetuate our society’s ageism and increase the inequality of opportunity in rural communities across my state and the country."
Dan wrote that his research reveals that our societal narrative about aging is false and out of date. The book's premise is that old age need not be a time of decline and irrelevance, but rather, a time of increased creativity, improvement in problem-solving skills, and full of meaning. He explodes several myths including the myth of failing memory, and the myth of old age depression. He wrote that "Across 72 countries the peak age of happiness is 82." He's hoping that the book will help change the conversation and he's trying to make the point that agism is one of the last biases that we tolerate in society. As he said above, it's difficult for older adults to get a job or get promoted. Two-thirds of American workers said they had witnessed or experienced age discrimination at work. "Employers should recognize that offering opportunities to older workers is smart business," he wrote, "not just a feel-good, charitable act. Multigenerational teams with older members tend to be more productive; older adults boost the productivity of those around them, and such teams outperform single-generational ones."
Singer/songwriter Rosanne Cash wrote that Successful Aging "is the book I need now. This is probably the book you need now. Levitin beautifully weaves hard science with more subtle, subjective agents of change-- compassion, friendship, the redemptive power of work-- into a refreshing guide for those of us navigating the penultimate stage of life."
Dan gave me three autographed copies of Successful Aging to help in our efforts to raise some contributions for Tom Winter's campaign. It doesn't matter how much you contribute but any contribution that comes in for Tom on this page or at the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer on the right, before Wednesday 1/29 at 6pm (PT) will give you a chance to win one of the autographed books.
We're going to select three winners at random. You don't have to live in Montana and you don't have to be an older voter. Anyone can give it a try.
Tom's a great candidate anyway and you can read more about him on his own website here. His campaign is fueled by issues like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, expanding labor rights, housing for all and criminal justice reform.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Democrats Face A War On Four Fronts

Democrats Face A War On Four Fronts

Whether it 's a fight over policy or a presidential elections , in modern politics Democrats are always forced to fight a war on four fronts .
First , Democrats must always struggle against an opposition party of bigots and imbeciles , led by a gang of vandals and madmen .
Second , Democrats must push back against a cynical political press and it 's pathological Both Siderism in the face of overwhelming evidence that Both Sides are most emphatically not equally and oppositely to blame of the failure of American political institutions .
Third , Democrats must continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire from the `` Blow everything up and start over !
!
! ''
white-and-privileged dead-ender caucus , whose `` politics '' is counterrevolutionary treason that prefers four more years of Trump ( with no personal consequences to themselves ) over `` compromise '' .
And fourth , Democrats must contend with the fact that no matter how sonic boom loud or clarion clear their words and ideas may be , they will always fall on the deaf ears of the 50 % of the country who are completely checked out and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
And while Republicans need only worry about using their vast media empire focused on keeping their homogeneous , ignorant , racist base whipped up and all goose-stepping pointed in the same direction , to get anything done , Democrats must continuously fight this four front war while trying to hold together an incredibly diverse and volatile coalition .
From Ezra Klein in the NYT : Put simply , Democrats can ’ t win running the kinds of campaigns and deploying the kinds of tactics that succeed for Republicans .
They can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are — but they can ’ t abandon the center or , given the geography of American politics , the center-right , and still hold power .
Democrats are modestly , but importantly , restrained by diversity and democracy .
Republicans are not ...
Appealing to Democrats requires appealing to a lot of different kinds of people with different interests .
Republicans are overwhelmingly dependent on white voters .
Democrats are a coalition of liberal whites , African-Americans , Hispanics , Asians and mixed-race voters .
Republicans are overwhelmingly dependent on Christian voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nonwhite Christians , Jews , Muslims , New Agers , agnostics , Buddhists and so on .
Three-quarters of Republicans identify as conservative , while only half of Democrats call themselves liberals — and for Democrats , that ’ s a historically high level .
As a result , winning the Democratic primary means winning liberal whites in New Hampshire and traditionalist blacks in South Carolina .
It means talking to Irish Catholics in Boston and atheists in San Francisco .
It means inspiring liberals without arousing the fears of moderates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult , pluralistic work of governing , in which the needs and concerns of many different groups must be balanced against one another .
So since we 're all going to lob bombs at each other during the primaries , how about sticking to flashbang grenades that temporarily stun , and not bunker-busters designed to so cripple a primary opponent so brutally that , even if your favorite candidate wins the endorsement of the Democratic Party , they will limp into the general election mortally wounded and having left nothing but bitter resentment @ @ @ @

Whether it's a fight over policy or a presidential elections, in modern politics Democrats are always forced to fight a war on four fronts.
First, Democrats must always struggle against an opposition party of bigots and imbeciles, led by a gang of vandals and madmen.
Rush Limbaugh today: "I’ve had dinner with John Bolton a couple times. I’ve met him two or three times, and if this passage in the book is true, and this is actually what he’s intending, it’s not the John Bolton I thought I knew, this kind of disloyalty." — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 27, 2020
Second, Democrats must push back against a cynical political press and it's pathological Both Siderism in the face of overwhelming evidence that Both Sides are most emphatically not equally and oppositely to blame of the failure of American political institutions.
just amazing NYT: “Both [sides] are bending the facts to fit their case.” NYT then fails to detail a SINGLE instance of Dems “bending” impeachment facts; https://t.co/6Wm5lo86oZ — Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) January 27, 2020
Third, Democrats must continue to slog forward in the face of sustained fire from the "Blow everything up and start over!!!" white-and-privileged dead-ender caucus, whose "politics" is counterrevolutionary treason that prefers four more years of Trump (with no personal consequences to themselves) over "compromise".
And fourth, Democrats must contend with the fact that no matter how sonic boom loud or clarion clear their words and ideas may be, they will always fall on the deaf ears of the 50% of the country who are completely checked out and do not know or care about any of this.
And while Republicans need only worry about using their vast media empire focused on keeping their homogeneous, ignorant, racist base whipped up and all goose-stepping pointed in the same direction, to get anything done, Democrats must continuously fight this four front war while trying to hold together an incredibly diverse and volatile coalition. From Ezra Klein in the NYT:
Put simply, Democrats can’t win running the kinds of campaigns and deploying the kinds of tactics that succeed for Republicans. They can move to the left — and they are — but they can’t abandon the center or, given the geography of American politics, the center-right, and still hold power. Democrats are modestly, but importantly, restrained by diversity and democracy. Republicans are not...
Appealing to Democrats requires appealing to a lot of different kinds of people with different interests. Republicans are overwhelmingly dependent on white voters. Democrats are a coalition of liberal whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and mixed-race voters. Republicans are overwhelmingly dependent on Christian voters. Democrats are a coalition of liberal and nonwhite Christians, Jews, Muslims, New Agers, agnostics, Buddhists and so on. Three-quarters of Republicans identify as conservative, while only half of Democrats call themselves liberals — and for Democrats, that’s a historically high level.
As a result, winning the Democratic primary means winning liberal whites in New Hampshire and traditionalist blacks in South Carolina. It means talking to Irish Catholics in Boston and atheists in San Francisco. It means inspiring liberals without arousing the fears of moderates. It’s important preparation for the difficult, pluralistic work of governing, in which the needs and concerns of many different groups must be balanced against one another.
So since we're all going to lob bombs at each other during the primaries, how about sticking to flashbang grenades that temporarily stun, and not bunker-busters designed to so cripple a primary opponent so brutally that, even if your favorite candidate wins the endorsement of the Democratic Party, they will limp into the general election mortally wounded and having left nothing but bitter resentment in their wake?
Republished with permission from Driftglass


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--NBC's Heidi Przybyla Rattles Rep. Lee Zeldin By Being Professional

What 's the saying , `` When you do n't have a defense , criticize the process ? ''
Here 's a variation : `` When you do n't have an answer , criticize the person who asks . ''
That 's the perfect description of what happened in this press scrum with three Republican members of Congress and NBC reporter Heidi Przybyla .
Add in , of course , a heaping side dish of sexism ( why are you so PUSHY , Heidi ? )
because REPUBLICANS .
ZELDIN : You have to let me answer your questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so after you have ... and listen , if I give a good answer , that does n't mean that you have to cut me off .
I know that if I give a bad answer you 'd probably let me go all day .
I understand that .
This is our second day .
PRZYBYLA : I 'll cut you off if you give a bad one .
ZELDIN : Right .
Well , let me answer you .
Catch that ?
Meanwhile , no answer to her question ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just whining about not being allowed to finish answers that are filled with BS , and the insulting implication that she is not impartial and professional .
PRZYBYLA : Biden , Crowdstrike , and what is the other specific corruption ?
ZELDIN : So , as far as — ( to other reporters ) listen , anyone else have any questions ?
I 'd be happy to answer this one ... PRZYBYLA : I know it 's a hard question , but it 's important .
ZELDIN : Oh , no , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It 's a hard question , because the president 's not on the record mentioning anything other than Biden and Crowdstrike .
That 's it .
And you have n't mentioned anything else .
ZELDIN : Okay , I 'm happy to answer your question .
ZELDIN : But all I was asking , because you have a lot of colleagues here , PRZYBYLA : ( to other reporters : ) You guys want the answer , right ?
ZELDIN : Okay , I 'm happy to .
But just ... no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Okay ?
And it 's one that might not be as , you 're not looking around to see if anyone else has any other questions .
But if you want ... ZELDIN : Media .
Media .
If you all want to ...
I mean you 're doing a great job as Schiff 's shills .
PRZYBYLA : Do n't insult us because we 're asking you tough questions .
Anyone find an answer in there , yet ?
Do n't you love how Zeldin is telling Przybyla how to do her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then telling her she 's not making sure other reporters get to ask their questions first , or being `` polite '' enough ?
You just KNOW he was dying to say she was n't being `` ladylike . ''
Then came the `` Shiff 's shills '' perjorative .
All she wants is an answer to her question .
Zeldin can not handle it .
Eventually he pawns it off to Mike Johnson , then Elise Stefanik , but Przybyla handles them with the same strength , professionalism and tenacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ THIS is how you do your job .
Bravo , Heidi Przybyla .
Supporting shout-out , also , to the media who backed her up .
The fourth estate has a fighting chance with reporters like these .
EDIT : The original version of this post incorrectly stated it was Rep. Hank Johnson in the scrum with Zeldin and Stefanik , but it was Rep. MIKE Johnson .
The author regrets the error .

What's the saying, "When you don't have a defense, criticize the process?" Here's a variation: "When you don't have an answer, criticize the person who asks." That's the perfect description of what happened in this press scrum with three Republican members of Congress and NBC reporter Heidi Przybyla. Add in, of course, a heaping side dish of sexism (why are you so PUSHY, Heidi?) because REPUBLICANS.
ZELDIN: You have to let me answer your questions. PRZYBYLA: Okay, anti-corruption platforms... ZELDIN: That's fantastic. Okay, so after you have... and listen, if I give a good answer, that doesn't mean that you have to cut me off. I know that if I give a bad answer you'd probably let me go all day. I understand that. This is our second day. PRZYBYLA: I'll cut you off if you give a bad one. ZELDIN: Right. Well, let me answer you. PRZYBYLA: Go ahead.
Catch that? Meanwhile, no answer to her question (which was about corruption in Ukraine.) Just whining about not being allowed to finish answers that are filled with BS, and the insulting implication that she is not impartial and professional.
ZELDIN: Questions? PRZYBYLA: Biden, Crowdstrike, and what is the other specific corruption? ZELDIN: So, as far as — (to other reporters) listen, anyone else have any questions? I'd be happy to answer this one... PRZYBYLA: I know it's a hard question, but it's important. ZELDIN: Oh, no, no, no. Hold on. PRZYBYLA: It's a hard question, because the president's not on the record mentioning anything other than Biden and Crowdstrike. That's it. And you haven't mentioned anything else. ZELDIN: Okay, I'm happy to answer your question. PRZYBYLA: Please. ZELDIN: But all I was asking, because you have a lot of colleagues here, PRZYBYLA: (to other reporters:) You guys want the answer, right? OTHER REPORTERS: Yes/Answer that/etc. ZELDIN: Okay, I'm happy to. But just...no...you have a unique style. Okay? And it's one that might not be as, you're not looking around to see if anyone else has any other questions. But if you want... PRZYBYLA: You're not answering. ZELDIN: Media. Media. If you all want to...I mean you're doing a great job as Schiff's shills. PRZYBYLA: Don't insult us because we're asking you tough questions.
Anyone find an answer in there, yet?
Don't you love how Zeldin is telling Przybyla how to do her job? Criticizing her style of questioning, and then telling her she's not making sure other reporters get to ask their questions first, or being "polite" enough? You just KNOW he was dying to say she wasn't being "ladylike." Then came the "Shiff's shills" perjorative. All she wants is an answer to her question. Zeldin cannot handle it. Eventually he pawns it off to Mike Johnson, then Elise Stefanik, but Przybyla handles them with the same strength, professionalism and tenacity as she handled Zeldin.
Media, THIS is how you do your job. Bravo, Heidi Przybyla. Supporting shout-out, also, to the media who backed her up. The fourth estate has a fighting chance with reporters like these.
EDIT: The original version of this post incorrectly stated it was Rep. Hank Johnson in the scrum with Zeldin and Stefanik, but it was Rep. MIKE Johnson. The author regrets the error.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Rep. Schiff: If They Want A Witness Trade, Let Them Call Mulvaney And Pompeo

Rep. Adam Schiff held a press conference after the White House legal team finished their opening statements ( rather abruptly , and with lots of time remaining ) Tuesday afternoon .
Top of mind , of course , was the issue of witnesses , and whether the Dems are considering negotiating any `` trades '' that Republicans have floated in order to get the votes to secure them .
The GOP have not so much been offering good-faith negotiations , but rather threats as to who will suffer and what they 'll suffer in exchange for legitimate , germane witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the case before them .
Mind you , this was before news broke that Mitch McConnell said he did not have enough votes to BLOCK witnesses , but that changes nothing about the strength of Rep. Schiff 's stance and answer to reporter Kasie Hunt 's question .
She asked him if he himself was prepared to be `` dragged '' into this , since that is one of the GOP threats .
If the good guys want Bolton , the bad guys want Schiff .
Or Hunter Biden .
Or Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say .
Rep. Schiff answered back in the sharpest , most cogent way articulated so far about why that type of agreement is not only untenable , but completely unnecessary .
REP. SCHIFF : In terms of the sort of red herrings , if we 're going to call , `` If the House Managers want to call relevant witnesses , we want to call irrelevant ones , because we want to make them pay a price for getting witnesses that are at the heart of this scheme . ''
That 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing .
HUNT : But you may have to ?
REP. SCHIFF : I can tell you what my testimony is , he 's guilty and he should be impeached .
I think the idea is an absurd one , but then , this is the idea you have to fall back on when you know how damaging John Bolton 's testimony is going to be .
You could say the same of Hunter Biden .
If they want to call a witness-for-witness , then let them call Mick Mulvaney .
Mick Mulvaney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to say .
Let them call Mick Mulvaney .
Let them call Secretary Pompeo .
Let them call people that are percipient witnesses to this scandal and this corrupt scheme , if they want a witness-for-witness .
But , that 's not really what they want .
They want a distraction , and I do n't think the Senators want to allow their proceedings to be turned into a circus .
It was brilliant .
The GOP wants to punish the Dems for holding their guy accountable for his crimes .
Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game .
If they want their own witnesses , let them call the ones that refute Bolton 's testimony .
LIke Mick Mulvaney .
Like Mike Pompeo .
You know , the ones who swear up and down that Trump has done absolutely nothing wrong .
Not Hunter Biden , who was nothing more than the excuse for Trump 's extortion attempt .
Not Joe Biden , who is nothing more than the politician Trump fears would beat him .
And not Adam Schiff , who has conducted this trial in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dare I say it — unimpeachable .

Rep. Adam Schiff held a press conference after the White House legal team finished their opening statements (rather abruptly, and with lots of time remaining) Tuesday afternoon. Top of mind, of course, was the issue of witnesses, and whether the Dems are considering negotiating any "trades" that Republicans have floated in order to get the votes to secure them. The GOP have not so much been offering good-faith negotiations, but rather threats as to who will suffer and what they'll suffer in exchange for legitimate, germane witnesses to inform the Senators on the details of the case before them.
Mind you, this was before news broke that Mitch McConnell said he did not have enough votes to BLOCK witnesses, but that changes nothing about the strength of Rep. Schiff's stance and answer to reporter Kasie Hunt's question. She asked him if he himself was prepared to be "dragged" into this, since that is one of the GOP threats. If the good guys want Bolton, the bad guys want Schiff. Or Hunter Biden. Or Joe Biden. It's only fair, they say.
Rep. Schiff answered back in the sharpest, most cogent way articulated so far about why that type of agreement is not only untenable, but completely unnecessary.
REP. SCHIFF: In terms of the sort of red herrings, if we're going to call, "If the House Managers want to call relevant witnesses, we want to call irrelevant ones, because we want to make them pay a price for getting witnesses that are at the heart of this scheme." That's not a game we're interested in playing. HUNT: But you may have to? REP. SCHIFF: I can tell you what my testimony is, he's guilty and he should be impeached. I think the idea is an absurd one, but then, this is the idea you have to fall back on when you know how damaging John Bolton's testimony is going to be. You could say the same of Hunter Biden. If they want to call a witness-for-witness, then let them call Mick Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney has said he disputes what John Bolton has to say. Let them call Mick Mulvaney. Let them call Secretary Pompeo. Let them call people that are percipient witnesses to this scandal and this corrupt scheme, if they want a witness-for-witness. But, that's not really what they want. They want a distraction, and I don't think the Senators want to allow their proceedings to be turned into a circus.
It was brilliant. The GOP wants to punish the Dems for holding their guy accountable for his crimes. Rep. Schiff's not going to play that game. If they want their own witnesses, let them call the ones that refute Bolton's testimony. LIke Mick Mulvaney. Like Mike Pompeo. You know, the ones who swear up and down that Trump has done absolutely nothing wrong. Not Hunter Biden, who was nothing more than the excuse for Trump's extortion attempt. Not Joe Biden, who is nothing more than the politician Trump fears would beat him. And not Adam Schiff, who has conducted this trial in a way that is flawless, moving, and dare I say it — unimpeachable.


crooksandliars--2020-01-29--Will Lev Parnas Be Able To Attend Trump's Impeachment Trial? His GPS May Get In The Way

NBC is now reporting that Lev Parnas will be attending Donald Trump 's impeachment trial and even better : Yes , he is going to be a GUEST of Chuck Schumer .
That is going to lead to a torrent of angry tweets from Cheetolini and his criminal cronies .
Has Rudy gotten a guest pass to the hottest party in town ?
I do n't think so .
Joseph Bondy , Lev Parnas ' attorney , asked the judge overseeing his case to allow him to come to D.C. to attend the trial on Wednesday .
This would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow him to travel out of the area .
Will he also be called as a witness ?
The timing is spot on as the next step is 2 days of questioning by the Senate members and then motions about witnesses .
If Parnas was already in the room , it increases the liklihood that they could call him - or he could pop in front of cameras IN the Senate and just talk to the American people and share what he would have already shared with the Senate .
Stay tuned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
UPDATE : It looks like technology may prevent Parnas from attending the trial .
What type of technology ?
His GPS ankle monitor .
The judge did grant him travel permissions , but denied his request to remove the GPS monitor .
The Senate has rules about no electronics in the gallery - phones , laptops , ipads - surely GPS are also banned .
So unless the Senate grants him a waiver , he will have to watch the trial from outside the gallery .

NBC is now reporting that Lev Parnas will be attending Donald Trump's impeachment trial and even better:
Lev Parnas asks judge to be allowed to attend the Senate impeachment trial; Parnas' attorney says Sen. Schumer's office granted him and Parnas tickets to attend the trial. https://t.co/DmxPpDXHCW — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) January 29, 2020
Yes, he is going to be a GUEST of Chuck Schumer. That is going to lead to a torrent of angry tweets from Cheetolini and his criminal cronies. Has Rudy gotten a guest pass to the hottest party in town? I don't think so.
Joseph Bondy, Lev Parnas' attorney, asked the judge overseeing his case to allow him to come to D.C. to attend the trial on Wednesday. This would be a limited modification to his bail conditions to allow him to travel out of the area.
Will he also be called as a witness? The timing is spot on as the next step is 2 days of questioning by the Senate members and then motions about witnesses. If Parnas was already in the room, it increases the liklihood that they could call him - or he could pop in front of cameras IN the Senate and just talk to the American people and share what he would have already shared with the Senate.
Stay tuned. This is gonna get GOOD.
UPDATE: It looks like technology may prevent Parnas from attending the trial. What type of technology? His GPS ankle monitor. The judge did grant him travel permissions, but denied his request to remove the GPS monitor. The Senate has rules about no electronics in the gallery - phones, laptops, ipads - surely GPS are also banned. So unless the Senate grants him a waiver, he will have to watch the trial from outside the gallery.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Sen. Kamala Harris Makes Justice Roberts Read Trump's Access Hollywood Quote

Senator Kamala Harris continues to outshine nearly all others in the Senate when it comes to sheer badassery .
Even thought she is not the one up there cross-examining witnesses , like she did during the confirmation hearings of Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh , Sen. Harris made her shrewd maneuvering known with this question she sent up to Chief Justice John Roberts .
ROBERTS : Thank you .
The question from Senator Harris is for the House Managers .
President Nixon said , quote , `` When the president does it that means that it is not illegal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected , president Trump said , quote , `` When you 're a star they let you do it , you can do anything , '' end quote .
After he was elected , president Trump said that Article 2 of the Constitution gives him , quote , `` the right to do whatever he wants as president . ''
End quote .
These statements suggest that each of them believed that the president is above the law .
A belief reflected in the improper actions that both presidents took to affect their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hold the president accountable for misconduct , how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice ?
The point about undermining the integrity of our justice system is important , and all , but can we for just a moment or three appreciate that she managed to get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to read Trump 's words from the Access Hollywood tape directly into the record of the Senate impeachment trial ?
?
?
I mean , that was some pretty extraordinary cleverness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were n't enough , Senator Kamala Harris sent up a question that not only brought Lev Parnas ' name into the chamber , but had SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts reading the words Trump spoke on the tape Igor Fruman secretly recorded .
`` Take her out . ''
She has never , and never will let any fool or criminal get away with ANYTHING , and for that reason , she has the respect and gratitude of millions of regular folks who love to see strong women make bullies cry .

Senator Kamala Harris continues to outshine nearly all others in the Senate when it comes to sheer badassery. Even thought she is not the one up there cross-examining witnesses, like she did during the confirmation hearings of Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Harris made her shrewd maneuvering known with this question she sent up to Chief Justice John Roberts.
ROBERTS: Thank you. The question from Senator Harris is for the House Managers. President Nixon said, quote, "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." End quote. Before he was elected, president Trump said, quote, "When you're a star they let you do it, you can do anything," end quote. After he was elected, president Trump said that Article 2 of the Constitution gives him, quote, "the right to do whatever he wants as president." End quote. These statements suggest that each of them believed that the president is above the law. A belief reflected in the improper actions that both presidents took to affect their re-election campaigns. If the Senate fails the hold the president accountable for misconduct, how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice?
The point about undermining the integrity of our justice system is important, and all, but can we for just a moment or three appreciate that she managed to get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to read Trump's words from the Access Hollywood tape directly into the record of the Senate impeachment trial??? I mean, that was some pretty extraordinary cleverness, right there.
This is perhaps one of the most wild things I’ve ever seen, @KamalaHarris having United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts read into the record Trump’s Access Hollywood comments: “When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” pic.twitter.com/0b6nDv58tm — Meena Harris (@meenaharris) January 29, 2020
Amazingly, Kamala Harris got the Chief Justice of the United States to read a lie in public, in the Senate, and he has no power to call it out as false. I need a shower after watching that. — Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 29, 2020
As if THAT weren't enough, Senator Kamala Harris sent up a question that not only brought Lev Parnas' name into the chamber, but had SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts reading the words Trump spoke on the tape Igor Fruman secretly recorded. "Take her out."
"The House of Representatives is in now possession of a tape of President Trump saying..."Get rid of her, get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Ok? Do it."
-Chief Justice Roberts reading @KamalaHarris's question impeachment trial question pic.twitter.com/hH6BNVy0Di — Florida Chris (@chrislongview) January 29, 2020
Heck yes! Question from Kamala Harris and Patty Murray of the House Managers
The House in possession of a tape where Trump said of ambassador Yovanovitch, "take her out. Do it" in company of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Will more info come out after this?
37/ — Jennifer Taub (@jentaub) January 29, 2020
Sen @PattyMurray also joined in that question.
It's not, I do not think, a coincidence, that two women Senators did not let Trump's attempt to smear and threaten a woman public servant go unnoticed. — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 29, 2020
The way Kamala Harris is getting Chief Justice Roberts to read Trump's own incriminating words against him out loud by including them in her questions and discussing Lev Parnas is brilliant. — Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) January 29, 2020
She has never, and never will let any fool or criminal get away with ANYTHING, and for that reason, she has the respect and gratitude of millions of regular folks who love to see strong women make bullies cry.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--A Look Back At The Impeachment And Conviction Of Barack Obama

As President Trump 's legal team wrapped up its impeachment defense on Tuesday , all eyes turned to the issue of witnesses .
But whether or not the mounting revelations surrounding former National Security Adviser John Bolton 's upcoming book are sufficient to spur Republican defections in the Senate , there is little doubt Donald Trump will be acquitted by the GOP majority .
The contrast with the impeachment and conviction of Barack Obama could not be more stark .
After all , yesterday 's developments came exactly 8 years after the Senate firmly under the control of Democratic Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove President Obama by an overwhelming 89-11 margin .
As it turned out , Obama 's obvious abuse of power in the `` ChutzpahGate '' affair -- seeking foreign intervention from Israel against his likely opponent in the 2012 election -- was unacceptable in the eyes of the media , his Democratic allies and Obama 's devoted base .
As you 'll recall , what came to be known as ChutzpahGate had its origins in the voting machines of the 2008 election and in the offices of a little-known startup in Tel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican John McCain in the general election that November , the 44th President was increasingly worried about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012 .
Despite the successes of Obama 's 2009 stimulus program , polling showed that the painfully slow recovery and stubbornly high unemployment made him vulnerable to a proven business leader like Romney .
Worse still in Obama 's eyes were the implications of a largely overlooked conspiracy theory floating around in some of the most fevered swamps of the internet .
During and after the 2008 GOP primaries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's surprising margins of victory in the Michigan , Minnesota and Colorado primaries were suspiciously high .
( The same blogger alleged that a pedophile ring met regularly in the basement of Barack Obama 's favorite vegan café in Washington , DC .
Those rumors were debunked when it turned out that `` Arugula Heaven '' was actually a food truck which made regular stops in Georgetown , Adams Morgan and Capitol Hill . )
All three states , it turned out , used the same electronic voting machines produced by the small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CES ) .
And Chutzpah had been largely funded by none other than Bain Capital , the venture capital firm Mitt Romney once led and from which the 2012 White House hopeful still profited handsomely .
With his own reelection less than two years away in the spring of 2011 , President Obama was growing increasingly concerned about Romney 's Chutzpah .
While its voting machines were little used during the 2008 race , by the 2010 midterms CES devices were deployed in 31 states .
In those elections , the Republicans picked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House as a popular vote wave washed away Democratic congressmen and governors .
Exacerbating Obama 's paranoia was Mitt Romney 's notoriously close relationship with his former colleague at Boston Consulting Group , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
When Romney visited Bibi in January 2011 , rumors began to swirl that the former Massachusetts Governor arranged for Netanyahu to get stock options in Chutzpah Election Systems .
Declaring `` we can almost speak in shorthand , '' Romney told the media : Soon , some of the President 's allies were muttering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister would use Chutzpah to electronically manipulate the 2012 vote in favor of his friend , Mitt Romney .
Soon , a whisper campaign suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was corrupt , just like his predecessor Ehud Olmert , who had been indicted in 2009 .
Speaking at a rally in North Carolina that March , Obama cryptically proclaimed : That 's why some eyebrows were raised in May 2011 when President Obama 's counselor John Podesta announced he would be making a trip to Israel .
Podesta , a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emanuel , explained the purpose of his trip this way : But if that seemed bizarre and suspicious , to Obama 's foes at least , the media let the matter drop .
Until , that is , revelations of a freeze on American aid to Israel began to surface that summer .
To be sure , this was a lot of money to put on hold .
At over $ 3 billion a year , U.S. military and financial assistance to the Jewish State was 8 times larger than the funding at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton among others said the aid was only temporarily held up due to `` bureaucratic technicalities , '' right-wing media went on the attack .
Pointing to the dollars to be allocated for new Arrow anti-missile systems and the first overseas deployments of the F-35 fighter jet , Sean Hannity of Fox News warned Obama was `` putting American and Israeli national security at risk . ''
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro called Obama 's `` a borderline Jew-hating administration '' and branded Rahm Emanuel `` a kapo '' who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jews on trains .
For her part , MSNBC host Rachel Maddow brushed off the Republican criticism while seated in front a graphic reading , `` NOTHING TO SEE HERE . ''
And there was nothing to see , until a whistleblower from the National Security Council staff came forward with a complaint that August .
The unclassified version of the complaint made public on August 12 , 2011 alleged that President Obama tried to extort the Israelis during a July 25 phone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu .
Israel would n't get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whistleblower claimed Obama said , until the Bibi announced two investigations into the Chutzpah affair .
First , Netanyahu had to publicly promise a probe to determine whether Chutzpah machines had helped Romney in 2008 and would do so again in 2012 .
Second , the Israeli leader needed to investigate whether Mitt and his son Tagg personally profited from Chutzpah 's sale of vote-rigging machines in the United States .
It all unraveled very quickly from there .
President Obama pressed his Attorney General Eric Holder to block the legally required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Holder not only refused , he told Obama he would not even read the document .
AG Holder told the Inspector General for national security and intelligence affairs to bring the complaint to Rep. Mike Rogers ( R-MI ) the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee .
After White House Press Secretary Jay Carney released a transcript of Obama 's July 25 call with Netanyahu , the architecture of the President 's quid pro quo became crystal clear : That was n't all .
President Obama went to remind Bibi of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why he went there : That `` former ambassador '' was Miriam Josefowitz , a thirty-year veteran of the American Foreign Service .
When Obama had Podesta pressure her to push the Israelis to jump start the investigations into Mitt and Tagg Romney , Josefowitz resigned in protest .
Soon she became a household name .
And soon , the freeze on the $ 3 billion in aid to Israel was lifted .
For his part , Netanyahu initially denied feeling any pressure from President Obama .
But in Congress , the heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire was coming from his own party , too .
Speaker John Boehner ( R-OH ) , fresh off his victory in that summer 's debt-ceiling hostage taking , announced in October that the House Intelligence , Oversight and Reform , and Foreign Affairs committees would jointly pursue an impeachment inquiry .
Obama 's fate would be in the hands of Rogers , Darrell Issa ( R-CA ) , and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ( R-FL ) .
When Rogers declared that hearings would begin on November 13 , 2011 , House Minority Leader Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the allegations against President Obama : The impeachment inquiry moved quickly in the House .
Within days , Attorney General Holder , the DOJ 's Office of Legal Counsel and the White House itself issued guidelines authorizing all federal agencies to turn over any documents required by the House committees .
Holder instructed Obama administration officials to honor any subpoenas .
White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler announced her office would not represent any officials , whether political appointees or career civil servants , from testifying before Congress .
Testify they did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate .
And the impact of their testimony was devastating .
Barack Obama never mentioned corruption in Israel , unless he was asking about Netanyahu , the Romneys and Chutzpah .
State Department and NSC staff described their complaints to their superiors .
One reported sitting in a café in Jerusalem while Podesta spoke to Obama on the phone .
Podesta bragged that Bibi would go along with their gambit `` even though he hates your ass . ''
The NSC staffer recounted hearing Obama through the phone shout , `` Romney 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he cooperates , maybe I 'll let him keep his doctor.
`` The media reaction was furious and bipartisan .
Fox News ran ChutzpahGate stories almost 24-7 .
( At one point , Hannity interviewed Donald Trump of all people .
Trump told Hannity he had dispatched private investigators to Tel Aviv , adding , `` You would n't believe what they 're finding . ''
) In the midst of the House impeachment hearings , the Obama-friendly Daily News front page headline read merely , `` O No ! ''
The York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment and convicted in a thundering screed titled simply , `` No , You Ca n't . ''
The night before the impeachment vote was taken , an ashen Rachel Maddow lamented the President 's impeachment was all but certain and deservedly so .
On December 18 , 2011 , President Obama was impeached by the United States House of Representatives .
The vote was 377 to 58 .
Among those voting `` yes '' was Rep. John Lewis ( D-GA ) .
After the historic House action , the Civil Rights legend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his eyes , Lewis said simply : By the time Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the Senate trial of Barack Obama into order , most of the President allies agreed with Lewis ' sentiment .
Secretary Clinton , who war largely unaware of Obama 's scheme , agreed to testify if asked .
So , too , did National Security Advisor Tom Donilon , who opposed the Israeli extortion racket from the get-go .
( While Donilon 's book on ChutzpahGate was to be published by the end of January 2012 ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House impeachment managers Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy ( R-SC ) , as well as to the Obama defense team .
By January 20 , Obama 's approval plummeted to just 24 percent .
Almost 80 percent of all Americans supported his conviction ; that figure included 68 percent of Democrats .
It 's no surprise the vote for call was witnesses was 98-2 .
But that was never a factor .
The evidence was overwhelming .
The objective truth of Obama 's criminality and abuse of power was inescapable .
On January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office ( GAO ) found that President Obama had broken the law .
His failed effort to block the funds passed by Congress and which he himself signed into law violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 .
On January 28 , 2012 , the Senate voted 89 to 11 to convict Barack Hussein Obama and remove him from office .
That same day , Vice President Joe Biden took the oath of office and became the 45th President of the United States .
As he left the Senate , a beaming Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` I have kept my promise to make Barack Obama a one-term president . ''
For a grim Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , the only consolation was that he had done his Constitutional duty : That night , Fox News , One America Network , Breitbart and the National Review all ran with the same talking point .
`` O'Bummer is O'Busted . ''
On CNN , Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon led a round table called , `` The Shame of Barack Obama . ''
On MSNBC , Lawrence O'Donnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama is what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have called a 'necessary heartbreak . '
'' The rest , as they say , is history .
Joe Biden , untouched by the Obama extortion racket , served out the remainder of his term .
But too weakened by ChutzpahGate , Biden was mauled by Mitt Romney in the 2012 election .
Romney 's 59 percent of the ballots -- along with 405 electoral votes -- represented the greatest landslide since Ronald Reagan 's in 1984 .
But President Romney 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the right , Romney was soon engulfed by his own scandal .
While allegations of vote-switching by CES voting machines were never proven , Romney confronted charges that he and other Bain executives were involved in financial wrong-doing by Chutzpah Election Systems .
Calling Mitt Romney a `` loser , '' it was Donald Trump who won the Republican nomination in 2016 .
He beat Democrat Hillary Clinton , whose treatment from the media only worsened since her days as First Lady .
And in Jerusalem , Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aside from Bibi 's indictment on other charges , none of these things happened .
But if they had , if Barack Obama had committed the offenses over which Donald Trump has been impeached , President Obama would certainly have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office .
Much of the so-called `` lamestream '' media and most Democratic voters , like me , would have insisted on it .

As President Trump's legal team wrapped up its impeachment defense on Tuesday, all eyes turned to the issue of witnesses. But whether or not the mounting revelations surrounding former National Security Adviser John Bolton's upcoming book are sufficient to spur Republican defections in the Senate, there is little doubt Donald Trump will be acquitted by the GOP majority.
The contrast with the impeachment and conviction of Barack Obama could not be more stark. After all, yesterday's developments came exactly 8 years after the Senate firmly under the control of Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voted to remove President Obama by an overwhelming 89-11 margin. As it turned out, Obama's obvious abuse of power in the "ChutzpahGate" affair--seeking foreign intervention from Israel against his likely opponent in the 2012 election--was unacceptable in the eyes of the media, his Democratic allies and Obama's devoted base.
As you'll recall, what came to be known as ChutzpahGate had its origins in the voting machines of the 2008 election and in the offices of a little-known startup in Tel Aviv. While Obama had easily defeated Republican John McCain in the general election that November, the 44th President was increasingly worried about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012. Despite the successes of Obama's 2009 stimulus program, polling showed that the painfully slow recovery and stubbornly high unemployment made him vulnerable to a proven business leader like Romney.
Worse still in Obama's eyes were the implications of a largely overlooked conspiracy theory floating around in some of the most fevered swamps of the internet.
During and after the 2008 GOP primaries, a far-right blogger declared that Governor Romney's surprising margins of victory in the Michigan, Minnesota and Colorado primaries were suspiciously high. (The same blogger alleged that a pedophile ring met regularly in the basement of Barack Obama's favorite vegan café in Washington, DC. Those rumors were debunked when it turned out that "Arugula Heaven" was actually a food truck which made regular stops in Georgetown, Adams Morgan and Capitol Hill.) All three states, it turned out, used the same electronic voting machines produced by the small Israeli company, Chutzpah Election Systems (CES). And Chutzpah had been largely funded by none other than Bain Capital, the venture capital firm Mitt Romney once led and from which the 2012 White House hopeful still profited handsomely.
With his own reelection less than two years away in the spring of 2011, President Obama was growing increasingly concerned about Romney's Chutzpah. While its voting machines were little used during the 2008 race, by the 2010 midterms CES devices were deployed in 31 states. In those elections, the Republicans picked up a staggering 63 seats in the House as a popular vote wave washed away Democratic congressmen and governors. Exacerbating Obama's paranoia was Mitt Romney's notoriously close relationship with his former colleague at Boston Consulting Group, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When Romney visited Bibi in January 2011, rumors began to swirl that the former Massachusetts Governor arranged for Netanyahu to get stock options in Chutzpah Election Systems. Declaring "we can almost speak in shorthand," Romney told the media:
"We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar. And I believe America must say -- and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel."
Soon, some of the President's allies were muttering about corruption in Israel and rumors the Prime Minister would use Chutzpah to electronically manipulate the 2012 vote in favor of his friend, Mitt Romney. Soon, a whisper campaign suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was corrupt, just like his predecessor Ehud Olmert, who had been indicted in 2009. Speaking at a rally in North Carolina that March, Obama cryptically proclaimed:
"Don't fall for the easy cynicism that says my vote doesn't matter, or all politicians are the same. It does matter, and they're not all the same. That's what my opponents wants you to think, because they don't want you to vote. And apparently, some of them won't stop there to win an election."
That's why some eyebrows were raised in May 2011 when President Obama's counselor John Podesta announced he would be making a trip to Israel. Podesta, a close associate of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, explained the purpose of his trip this way:
"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do. "There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy -- I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."
But if that seemed bizarre and suspicious, to Obama's foes at least, the media let the matter drop.
Until, that is, revelations of a freeze on American aid to Israel began to surface that summer. To be sure, this was a lot of money to put on hold. At over $3 billion a year, U.S. military and financial assistance to the Jewish State was 8 times larger than the funding at issue in Trump's Ukraine imbroglio. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton among others said the aid was only temporarily held up due to "bureaucratic technicalities," right-wing media went on the attack. Pointing to the dollars to be allocated for new Arrow anti-missile systems and the first overseas deployments of the F-35 fighter jet, Sean Hannity of Fox News warned Obama was "putting American and Israeli national security at risk." Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro called Obama's "a borderline Jew-hating administration" and branded Rahm Emanuel "a kapo" who along with his boss was personally putting Jews on trains. For her part, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow brushed off the Republican criticism while seated in front a graphic reading, "NOTHING TO SEE HERE."
And there was nothing to see, until a whistleblower from the National Security Council staff came forward with a complaint that August. The unclassified version of the complaint made public on August 12, 2011 alleged that President Obama tried to extort the Israelis during a July 25 phone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Israel wouldn't get a dollar of the American aid, the whistleblower claimed Obama said, until the Bibi announced two investigations into the Chutzpah affair. First, Netanyahu had to publicly promise a probe to determine whether Chutzpah machines had helped Romney in 2008 and would do so again in 2012. Second, the Israeli leader needed to investigate whether Mitt and his son Tagg personally profited from Chutzpah's sale of vote-rigging machines in the United States.
It all unraveled very quickly from there. President Obama pressed his Attorney General Eric Holder to block the legally required transmission of the whistleblower complaint to Congress. Holder not only refused, he told Obama he would not even read the document. AG Holder told the Inspector General for national security and intelligence affairs to bring the complaint to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. After White House Press Secretary Jay Carney released a transcript of Obama's July 25 call with Netanyahu, the architecture of the President's quid pro quo became crystal clear:
NETANYAHU: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more F-35's from the United States for defense purposes. PRESIDENT OBAMA: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Israel knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Romney and the voting machines, they say Chutzpah... I guess you have one of our wealthy people... The voting machines, they say Israel has them. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.
That wasn't all. President Obama went to remind Bibi of John Podesta's mission to Israel and why he went there:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: John very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Romney's son, that Romney stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do would be great. Romney went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
That "former ambassador" was Miriam Josefowitz, a thirty-year veteran of the American Foreign Service. When Obama had Podesta pressure her to push the Israelis to jump start the investigations into Mitt and Tagg Romney, Josefowitz resigned in protest. Soon she became a household name. And soon, the freeze on the $3 billion in aid to Israel was lifted.
For his part, Netanyahu initially denied feeling any pressure from President Obama. But in Congress, the heat was on Obama. And the incoming fire was coming from his own party, too.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), fresh off his victory in that summer's debt-ceiling hostage taking, announced in October that the House Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs committees would jointly pursue an impeachment inquiry. Obama's fate would be in the hands of Rogers, Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). When Rogers declared that hearings would begin on November 13, 2011, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations against President Obama:
"I love Barack Obama and stood with him to save our economy, to bring health care to all Americans and to pass climate change legislation. But if these allegations are true, the President would have jeopardized the national security of the United States and our ally Israel at risk and all for his personal political gain. Even if the Romneys did engage in corrupt conduct in Israel, bribing a foreign leader to interfere in our democratic election process would represent a violation of President Obama's oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The impeachment inquiry moved quickly in the House. Within days, Attorney General Holder, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and the White House itself issued guidelines authorizing all federal agencies to turn over any documents required by the House committees. Holder instructed Obama administration officials to honor any subpoenas. White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler announced her office would not represent any officials, whether political appointees or career civil servants, from testifying before Congress.
Testify they did, both in the House and in the Senate. And the impact of their testimony was devastating. Barack Obama never mentioned corruption in Israel, unless he was asking about Netanyahu, the Romneys and Chutzpah. State Department and NSC staff described their complaints to their superiors. One reported sitting in a café in Jerusalem while Podesta spoke to Obama on the phone. Podesta bragged that Bibi would go along with their gambit "even though he hates your ass." The NSC staffer recounted hearing Obama through the phone shout, "Romney's going to go to prison. If he cooperates, maybe I'll let him keep his doctor. "
The media reaction was furious and bipartisan. Fox News ran ChutzpahGate stories almost 24-7. (At one point, Hannity interviewed Donald Trump of all people. Trump told Hannity he had dispatched private investigators to Tel Aviv, adding, "You wouldn't believe what they're finding.") In the midst of the House impeachment hearings, the Obama-friendly Daily News front page headline read merely, "O No!" The York Times editorial board called for Obama's impeachment and convicted in a thundering screed titled simply, "No, You Can't." The night before the impeachment vote was taken, an ashen Rachel Maddow lamented the President's impeachment was all but certain and deservedly so.
"Not since Eduard Bernstein issued his call for 'evolutionary socialism' in 1909 have working men and women felt as hopeless and betrayed as they do in America tonight. Like Karl Kautsky of the German Workers' Party voting for the war credits that helped launch the carnage of the First World War, Barack Obama was not the change we've been waiting for."
On December 18, 2011, President Obama was impeached by the United States House of Representatives. The vote was 377 to 58. Among those voting "yes" was Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). After the historic House action, the Civil Rights legend spoke to the press. With tears in his eyes, Lewis said simply:
"I love Barack Obama like a son. On my desk, I have a framed photograph of myself with him on which he wrote, 'Because of you, John.' But this, using the power of the presidency for his own political gain is not what Dr. King fought for. It's not what the Freedom Riders suffered for. And it's not what I bled for."
By the time Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the Senate trial of Barack Obama into order, most of the President allies agreed with Lewis' sentiment. Secretary Clinton, who war largely unaware of Obama's scheme, agreed to testify if asked. So, too, did National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, who opposed the Israeli extortion racket from the get-go. (While Donilon's book on ChutzpahGate was to be published by the end of January 2012; he volunteered to deliver the manuscript to House impeachment managers Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy (R-SC), as well as to the Obama defense team. By January 20, Obama's approval plummeted to just 24 percent. Almost 80 percent of all Americans supported his conviction; that figure included 68 percent of Democrats. It's no surprise the vote for call was witnesses was 98-2.
But that was never a factor. The evidence was overwhelming. The objective truth of Obama's criminality and abuse of power was inescapable. On January 16, 2012, the General Accountability Office (GAO) found that President Obama had broken the law. His failed effort to block the funds passed by Congress and which he himself signed into law violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. On January 28, 2012, the Senate voted 89 to 11 to convict Barack Hussein Obama and remove him from office. That same day, Vice President Joe Biden took the oath of office and became the 45th President of the United States.
As he left the Senate, a beaming Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proclaimed, "I have kept my promise to make Barack Obama a one-term president." For a grim Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the only consolation was that he had done his Constitutional duty:
"This is as sad and disappointing a day as I can recall in my long life. Barack Obama had so much promise. For a time, he was the embodiment of hope for millions of Americans. But no man is above the law. No President of the United States can flout the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold. In voting with most of my colleagues to convict and remove President Obama, we have sent the message that in the United States truth and the rule of law still reign supreme."
That night, Fox News, One America Network, Breitbart and the National Review all ran with the same talking point. "O'Bummer is O'Busted." On CNN, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon led a round table called, "The Shame of Barack Obama." On MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell said simply, "The conviction of Barack Obama is what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have called a 'necessary heartbreak.'"
The rest, as they say, is history. Joe Biden, untouched by the Obama extortion racket, served out the remainder of his term. But too weakened by ChutzpahGate, Biden was mauled by Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Romney's 59 percent of the ballots--along with 405 electoral votes--represented the greatest landslide since Ronald Reagan's in 1984. But President Romney's honeymoon didn't last long. Hounded from the right, Romney was soon engulfed by his own scandal. While allegations of vote-switching by CES voting machines were never proven, Romney confronted charges that he and other Bain executives were involved in financial wrong-doing by Chutzpah Election Systems. Calling Mitt Romney a "loser," it was Donald Trump who won the Republican nomination in 2016. He beat Democrat Hillary Clinton, whose treatment from the media only worsened since her days as First Lady. And in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted for his Chutzpah.
Of course, aside from Bibi's indictment on other charges, none of these things happened. But if they had, if Barack Obama had committed the offenses over which Donald Trump has been impeached, President Obama would certainly have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Much of the so-called "lamestream" media and most Democratic voters, like me, would have insisted on it.
Published with permission of Perrspectives.


crooksandliars--2020-01-30--Claire McCaskill Dubs Alan Dershowitz 'Mr. Underwear'

As Chief Justice Roberts entered the Senate chambers to begin today 's impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump , former Senator Claire McCaskill laid into Republicans for relying on Jeffrey Epstein pal `` Mr .
Underwear '' Alan Dershowitz .
`` We 've talked about how Democrats are in the weird position of celebrating Bolton and Romney , '' she said .
`` What about this ?
How about a guy who is exposed for being part of the Epstein scandal who admits he was at the house where these massages were going on , sworn testimony that he was there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admits that 'Yeah , I was there and yeah , I had a massage but it was an adult woman and I kept my underwear on ! '
'' She went on to note that there was a time in our recent history where no Republican would look to a guy like that to save their bacon .
`` Now Mr .
Underwear is now spewing phony legal theories on the floor of the United States Senate , '' she said .
`` That 's what these guys are going to hang their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' # MrUnderwear is now on fire on Twitter .
Alan Dershowitz will forever be known as Mr .
Underwear .

As Chief Justice Roberts entered the Senate chambers to begin today's impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, former Senator Claire McCaskill laid into Republicans for relying on Jeffrey Epstein pal "Mr. Underwear" Alan Dershowitz.
"We've talked about how Democrats are in the weird position of celebrating Bolton and Romney," she said. "What about this? How about a guy who is exposed for being part of the Epstein scandal who admits he was at the house where these massages were going on, sworn testimony that he was there when underage girls were there and he admits that 'Yeah, I was there and yeah, I had a massage but it was an adult woman and I kept my underwear on!'"
She went on to note that there was a time in our recent history where no Republican would look to a guy like that to save their bacon.
"Now Mr. Underwear is now spewing phony legal theories on the floor of the United States Senate," she said. "That's what these guys are going to hang their hat on? It's outrageous!"
#MrUnderwear is now on fire on Twitter.
If Claire McCaskill can call Alan Dershowitz "Mr. Underwear," on CNN then so can I.
Be sure to read my latest on Mr. Underwear here: https://t.co/EZRb4trxBt — Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) January 30, 2020
You know, they've got this crazy new-fangled thing where they can record people speaking in public & play it back so people who didn't hear it the first time get to hear it. You're a liar, Mr. Underwear.#dershowitzlogic: It's not a crime if you wear keep your underpants on. https://t.co/Dx1K1uivMf — Debbie Do (@debbiedonothing) January 30, 2020
Alan Dershowitz will forever be known as Mr. Underwear.