crooksandliars--2020-01-25--Schiff: Trump's Helsinki Treason Summit With Putin Was 'An Intelligence Coup' For Putin

I 've been waiting for a long time for someone to reach back to that disastrous Helsinki press conference where the so-called president stood side-by-side with Vladimir Putin and denied his own intelligence services in favor of Putin 's talking points and tie it to his corrupt behavior in Ukraine .
Rep. Adam Schiff definitely packed it in a neat package and tied it up with an ugly bow .
After playing the clip of Trump blaming both sides for Russia 's election hacking , Schiff unpacked it .
The transcript is below , but really , just watch it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disgust without hearing him .
I 'm sure you remember this .
It was I think unforgettable for every American .
But I 'm sure it was equally unforgettable for Vladimir Putin .
I mean , there he is , the President of Russia , standing next to the President of the United States , and hearing his own Kremlin propaganda talking points coming from the President of the United States .
Now , if that 's not a propaganda coup I do n't know what is .
It 's the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary thing .
The president of the united states standing next to the president of Russia , our adversary , saying he does n't believe his own intelligence agencies .
He does n't believe them .
He 's promoting this crazy server theory cooked up by the Kremlin .
Right next to the guy that cooked it up .
It 's a breathtaking success of Russian intelligence .
I do n't know if there 's ever been a greater success of Russian intelligence .
Whatever profile Russia did of our president , boy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Flattery and propaganda .
Flattery and propaganda is all Russia needed .
And as to Ukraine , well , they needed to deliver a political investigation to get help from the United States .
I mean , this is just the most incredible propaganda coup .
Because as I said yesterday , it 's not just that the President of the United States standing next to Vladimir Putin is reading Kremlin talking points .
He wo n't read his own national security staff talking points but he will read the Kremlin ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he adopts the Kremlin talking points .
That would be bad enough .
It is not bad enough , not damaging enough , not dangerous enough to our national security that he 's undermining our own intelligence agencies .
It 's not bad enough that he undermines those very agencies that he needs later that we need later to have credibility .
We 've just had a vigorous debate over these -- the strikes against General Soleimani and the president made his argument of what the intelligence says and supports .
How do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the U.S. Intelligence community ca n't be believed .
Now , we have had a vigorous debate about what that intelligence has to say .
That 's not the issue here .
The issue here is that you undermine the credibility of our own intelligence agencies .
You weaken the country !
For when you need to rely on them .
For when you need to persuade your friends and allies .
You can trust us when we tell you this is what the intelligence shows .
How do you make that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States when you just told the world you trust the Russians more than your own people ?
You trust Rudy Giuliani more than Christopher Wray .
How do you make that case ?
If you ca n't make that case what does that mean to our security ?
But that 's not the end of it .
It 's not just a propaganda coup .
It is not just the undermining of our agencies .
It is also that the buy-in to that propaganda meant that Ukraine was n't going to get money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that 's one hell of a Russian intelligence coup .
They got the President of the United States to provide cover for their own interference with our election .
They got the President of the United states to discredit their own intelligence agencies , to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine , the President of the United States to withhold aid from Ukraine in a war with Russia , in a war claiming Ukrainian lives every week .
Has there ever been such a coup ?
I would submit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cold War the Soviet Union had no such success , no such success and why ?
Because a former mayor of New York persuaded a president of the United States to sacrifice all of that .
Was it worth it ?
I hope it was worth it .
I hope it was worth it .
For the president .
Because it certainly was n't worth it for the United States .

I've been waiting for a long time for someone to reach back to that disastrous Helsinki press conference where the so-called president stood side-by-side with Vladimir Putin and denied his own intelligence services in favor of Putin's talking points and tie it to his corrupt behavior in Ukraine. Rep. Adam Schiff definitely packed it in a neat package and tied it up with an ugly bow.
After playing the clip of Trump blaming both sides for Russia's election hacking, Schiff unpacked it. The transcript is below, but really, just watch it because you can't capture the passion and disgust without hearing him.
I'm sure you remember this. It was I think unforgettable for every American. But I'm sure it was equally unforgettable for Vladimir Putin. I mean, there he is, the President of Russia, standing next to the President of the United States, and hearing his own Kremlin propaganda talking points coming from the President of the United States.
Now, if that's not a propaganda coup I don't know what is. It's the most extraordinary thing. It's the most extraordinary thing. The president of the united states standing next to the president of Russia, our adversary, saying he doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies. He doesn't believe them. He's promoting this crazy server theory cooked up by the Kremlin. Right next to the guy that cooked it up. It's a breathtaking success of Russian intelligence. I don't know if there's ever been a greater success of Russian intelligence.
Whatever profile Russia did of our president, boy, did they have him spot on. Flattery and propaganda. Flattery and propaganda is all Russia needed. And as to Ukraine, well, they needed to deliver a political investigation to get help from the United States. I mean, this is just the most incredible propaganda coup.
Because as I said yesterday, it's not just that the President of the United States standing next to Vladimir Putin is reading Kremlin talking points. He won't read his own national security staff talking points but he will read the Kremlin ones. But it's not just that he adopts the Kremlin talking points. That would be bad enough. It is not bad enough, not damaging enough, not dangerous enough to our national security that he's undermining our own intelligence agencies. It's not bad enough that he undermines those very agencies that he needs later that we need later to have credibility.
We've just had a vigorous debate over these -- the strikes against General Soleimani and the president made his argument of what the intelligence says and supports. How do you make those arguments? When you say the U.S. Intelligence community can't be believed.
Now, we have had a vigorous debate about what that intelligence has to say. That's not the issue here. The issue here is that you undermine the credibility of our own intelligence agencies. You weaken the country! For when you need to rely on them. For when you need to persuade your friends and allies. You can trust us when we tell you this is what the intelligence shows.
How do you make that argument as the President of the United States when you just told the world you trust the Russians more than your own people? You trust Rudy Giuliani more than Christopher Wray. How do you make that case? If you can't make that case what does that mean to our security? But that's not the end of it. It's not just a propaganda coup. It is not just the undermining of our agencies.
It is also that the buy-in to that propaganda meant that Ukraine wasn't going to get money to fight the Russians. I mean, that's one hell of a Russian intelligence coup. They got the President of the United States to provide cover for their own interference with our election. They got the President of the United states to discredit their own intelligence agencies, to drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine, the President of the United States to withhold aid from Ukraine in a war with Russia, in a war claiming Ukrainian lives every week.
Has there ever been such a coup? I would submit to you in the entire length of the Cold War the Soviet Union had no such success, no such success and why? Because a former mayor of New York persuaded a president of the United States to sacrifice all of that. Was it worth it? I hope it was worth it. I hope it was worth it. For the president. Because it certainly wasn't worth it for the United States.


crooksandliars--2020-01-25--Andrew Napolitano: Impeached Trump Should Be Removed From Office

Fox News “ senior judicial analyst ” Andrew Napolitano saved his recommendation for the end but his FoxNews.com column asking , “ What does it take to remove a president ?
” after impeachment , makes it very clear that Trump has “ amply ” qualified .
Napolitano , who has been noticeably absent from Fox ’ s on-air coverage of Trump ’ s impeachment trial , openly contradicted Fox ’ s “ nothing to see here ” messaging : “ His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax .
It is deadly serious business based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in his column .
Napolitano went on to note that that Government Accountability office concluded Trump “ acted unlawfully ” when he asked the president of Ukraine for a favor .
“ But did he act criminally ?
” Napolitano asked .
The answer is an unequivocal “ yes.
” Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government .
There is no dispute that Trump did this .
In fact , the case for this is stronger now than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
Since then , more evidence , which Trump tried to suppress , has come to light .
That evidence “ implicates two other crimes , ” Napolitano wrote .
Those are bribery and contempt of Congress .
Napolitano concluded that there are “ valid , lawful , constitutional arguments for Trump 's impeachment ” and any Republican senator who may have “ whispered ” to him that he will be acquitted has “ violated the oath of ‘ impartial justice ’ and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that evidence was too “ boring ” for most of Fox News to have noticed .

Fox News “senior judicial analyst” Andrew Napolitano saved his recommendation for the end but his FoxNews.com column asking, “What does it take to remove a president?” after impeachment, makes it very clear that Trump has “amply” qualified.
Napolitano, who has been noticeably absent from Fox’s on-air coverage of Trump’s impeachment trial, openly contradicted Fox’s “nothing to see here” messaging: “His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms," Napolitano wrote in his column.
Napolitano went on to note that that Government Accountability office concluded Trump “acted unlawfully” when he asked the president of Ukraine for a favor. “But did he act criminally?” Napolitano asked.
The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”
Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.
That evidence “implicates two other crimes,” Napolitano wrote. Those are bribery and contempt of Congress.
Napolitano concluded that there are “valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment” and any Republican senator who may have “whispered” to him that he will be acquitted has “violated the oath of ‘impartial justice’ and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.”
Finally, there is this:
What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.
Apparently, that evidence was too “boring” for most of Fox News to have noticed.
Published with permission from News Hounds.


crooksandliars--2020-01-25--'Cruelty Is The Point': Trump Wants Medicaid Block Grants

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to intensify its assault on Medicaid by granting certain states permission to convert federal funding for the program into block grants , a move critics slammed as a cruel and likely illegal attack on vulnerable people .
Politico reported Thursday that the plan , which could be finalized as early as next week , would allow the 37 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to seek waivers to convert funding into fixed sums that could limit states ' flexibility to increase spending in response to public need .
Block-granting Medicaid is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least to the Reagan administration .
The Trump administration 's proposal has been in the works for over a year .
Bruce Bartlett , an architect of former President Ronald Reagan 's right-wing economic agenda who left the GOP in 2006 , tweeted Thursday that `` block grants are just a Republican trick to slash spending without appearing to do so . ''
`` Money is fungible , '' Bartlett said .
`` Medicaid funding will be used to pay for other programs or even to finance tax cuts . ''
News of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma , comes just days after President Donald Trump threatened to slash Medicare and Social Security funding `` at some point '' should he win reelection in November .
According to Politico , the specifics of the Medicaid proposal—which the Trump administration is looking to implement without congressional approval—are `` in flux , as officials work to identify an alternative to the term 'block grant , ' which has negative connotations in the advocacy community . ''
Brad Woodhouse , executive director of advocacy group Protect Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration 's latest attack on Medicaid shows `` the president 's war on healthcare knows no bounds . ''
`` In the same week President Trump said cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are on the table , '' said Woodhouse , `` we now learn that his administration is set to propose benefit-slashing block grants on Medicaid expansion , targeting the benefits of millions of Americans who have gained coverage through one of the Affordable Care Act 's most important , successful , and popular provisions . ''
`` They ca n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare ( even the ones that 'adjust for inflation ' ) and lead to would-be recipients going without care , '' said Nelson .
`` Forty-three percent of Medicaid enrollees are children .
The Trump admin knows that .
The cruelty is the point . ''

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to intensify its assault on Medicaid by granting certain states permission to convert federal funding for the program into block grants, a move critics slammed as a cruel and likely illegal attack on vulnerable people.
Politico reported Thursday that the plan, which could be finalized as early as next week, would allow the 37 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to seek waivers to convert funding into fixed sums that could limit states' flexibility to increase spending in response to public need.
Block-granting Medicaid is a longtime Republican goal dating back at least to the Reagan administration. The Trump administration's proposal has been in the works for over a year.
Bruce Bartlett, an architect of former President Ronald Reagan's right-wing economic agenda who left the GOP in 2006, tweeted Thursday that "block grants are just a Republican trick to slash spending without appearing to do so."
"Money is fungible," Bartlett said. "Medicaid funding will be used to pay for other programs or even to finance tax cuts."
News of the plan, led by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma, comes just days after President Donald Trump threatened to slash Medicare and Social Security funding "at some point" should he win reelection in November.
According to Politico, the specifics of the Medicaid proposal—which the Trump administration is looking to implement without congressional approval—are "in flux, as officials work to identify an alternative to the term 'block grant,' which has negative connotations in the advocacy community."
Brad Woodhouse, executive director of advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that the administration's latest attack on Medicaid shows "the president's war on healthcare knows no bounds."
"In the same week President Trump said cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are on the table," said Woodhouse, "we now learn that his administration is set to propose benefit-slashing block grants on Medicaid expansion, targeting the benefits of millions of Americans who have gained coverage through one of the Affordable Care Act's most important, successful, and popular provisions."
Kim Nelson, a public health advocate and South Carolina Democratic congressional candidate, tweeted Friday that Medicaid block grants "don't work."
"They can't keep pace with the rising costs of healthcare (even the ones that 'adjust for inflation') and lead to would-be recipients going without care," said Nelson. "Forty-three percent of Medicaid enrollees are children. The Trump admin knows that. The cruelty is the point."
Republished from Common Dreams (Jake Johnson, staff writer) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--C&L's Sat Nite Comedy Club With Rob Haze

Trump 's Secretary of State launched into an F-bomb tirade against Kelly , and then accused her of lying and @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine on a map .

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--2020-01-26--Louise Linton Sides With Greta Thunberg Over Her Husband Steve Mnuchin

Whether Mnuchin ordered the deletion or not is probably a question best asked of yet another dysfunctional couple in Donald Trump 's orbit .
One suspects there was much yelling today in Mnuchin household .
The wife of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin posted Saturday on Instagram in support of climate activist Greta Thunberg after she called this week for divestment in the fossil fuel industry .
Thunberg , 17 , speaking in Davos , Switzerland , on Tuesday during the annual World Economic Forum attended by world leaders , billionaires and academics , called for immediate divestment .
Mnuchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film producer appointed to his post by President Donald Trump , dismissed the idea Thursday by suggesting Thunberg was not qualified to make such a call .
`` Who is she ? ''
he said in Davos .
`` After she goes and studies economics in college , she can come back and explain that to us . ''
His wife Louise Linton , a Los Angeles-based actor and producer , had an opposing opinion , posting on Instagram Saturday , `` I stand with Greta on this issue . ''
`` ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economics either ) , '' she said .
`` We need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels .
Keep up the fight @ gretathunberg . ''

Whether Mnuchin ordered the deletion or not is probably a question best asked of yet another dysfunctional couple in Donald Trump's orbit. One suspects there was much yelling today in Mnuchin household.
Source: NBC News
The wife of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin posted Saturday on Instagram in support of climate activist Greta Thunberg after she called this week for divestment in the fossil fuel industry.
Thunberg, 17, speaking in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday during the annual World Economic Forum attended by world leaders, billionaires and academics, called for immediate divestment.
Mnuchin, a former investment banker and Hollywood film producer appointed to his post by President Donald Trump, dismissed the idea Thursday by suggesting Thunberg was not qualified to make such a call.
"Who is she?" he said in Davos. "After she goes and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us."
His wife Louise Linton, a Los Angeles-based actor and producer, had an opposing opinion, posting on Instagram Saturday, "I stand with Greta on this issue."
"(I don't have a degree in economics either)," she said. "We need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels. Keep up the fight @gretathunberg."


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Warning: Lamar Alexander Will Not Save Us

A word of advice : Do n't get your hopes up .
If you want to know how President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial could play out , keep your eye on Lamar Alexander .
... Three GOP senators have expressed some level of support for calling witnesses , and if they joined all Democrats , it would result in a 50-50 tie and likely be defeated .
Unless Chief Justice John Roberts shocked Washington by wading in with a tie-break , Democrats need one more Republican to break ranks and upend GOP plans for a swift Trump acquittal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eagerly eyeing Alexander .
He 's a retiring defender of the Senate as an institution who 's occasionally bucked his party , but he also counts Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a longtime ally .
He 's more hesitant to criticize Trump than are some other Republicans , but he also has said it was `` inappropriate '' for Trump to ask foreign governments to investigate his political opponents .
... Democrats ... are holding out hope that Alexander will be their hero in the mold of the late Sen. John McCain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s effort to repeal Obamacare .
Though Alexander would never blindside McConnell the way McCain did , he is widely believed to be a Republican who could be receptive to Democrats ’ message that the Senate needs to hear more evidence .
But CNN 's Manu Raju is right : There wo n't be a 51-49 vote for witnesses .
There will have to be more than 51 senators in favor .
MANU RAJU , CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT : Well I can tell you , Chris that it 's unlikely that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break ranks , if they were to be enough , a majority vote , because no Republican Senator wants to be vote number 51 .
If there is enough support in the Senate to subpoena document , subpoena witnesses , there is more likely going to be 53 or 54 votes .
That means there would have to be more than four potentially , in order to move forward , maybe five , maybe six , maybe seven , maybe eight , to do just that .
And , at the moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility .
That could certainly change .
But talking to Republican Senators , people who are on the fence , people who are in Republican leadership , it is highly unlikely , at the moment that they will vote to subpoena witnesses and documents .
Now , that could change because some Members are still holding their cards pretty close to their vest .
Susan Collins has indicated that she would vote to subpoena most likely witnesses and documents , also Mitt Romney has indicated that he wants to subpoena , talk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ openness to it .
But who is the fourth ?
Who is the fifth ?
Who is the sixth Senator ?
Uncertain and unclear , at the moment .
People look at Lamar Alexander , for one , the Tennessee Republican .
I 've talked to him many times over the last several weeks , and he 's taking it very careful , he 's very cautious about it .
He 's a retiring institutionalist .
But he 's also very close to Mitch McConnell .
He 's been critical of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of skeptics that he would be vote number 51 .
So , if you 're going by the theory that you need to have about 53 Senators in order to move forward , getting the other two is on - who those other people are is unclear .
Even people like a Cory Gardner , who 's up for re-election in Colorado , in a swing state , someone - one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country , he also needs the President 's support in order to win reelection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about saying anything critical about the President so far .
So , a lot of questions about whether the Democrats can succeed because their goal right now ... .
It 's not going to happen .
It was never going to happen .
I told you on Sunday that Republican senators would inevitably respond to this trial by announcing that they were shocked , shocked , by the Democrats ' behavior : Much of the Senate GOP , along with the White House and the right-wing media , is about to declare that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a flagrant violation of law , common sense , and the Constitution .
Once this happens , even alleged moderates such as Mitt Romney and Susan Collins will join in the fauxtrage -- and you can forget a successful vote to call witnesses or allow further documentary evidence to be considered .
The plan is to say that the behavior of the Democrats was so out of bounds that the only way to conclude the process fairly is a vote to dismiss the charges -- and that will happen .
That 's more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We had this after the first day : And we had this : And now we have this ( admittedly from a non-moderate ) : Besides complaints about boredom ( “ They ’ ve got about a one-hour presentation that they gave six hours on Tuesday and eight hours yesterday , ” Senator Roy Blunt told The New York Times ) , Republican senators will say that the Democratic case was presented in an offensive manner .
The moderates will suggest that they might have voted for witnesses if Democrats had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses .
Published with permission from No More Mr. Nice Blog

A word of advice: Don't get your hopes up.
If you want to know how President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial could play out, keep your eye on Lamar Alexander. ... Three GOP senators have expressed some level of support for calling witnesses, and if they joined all Democrats, it would result in a 50-50 tie and likely be defeated. Unless Chief Justice John Roberts shocked Washington by wading in with a tie-break, Democrats need one more Republican to break ranks and upend GOP plans for a swift Trump acquittal. That’s got both parties eagerly eyeing Alexander. He's a retiring defender of the Senate as an institution who's occasionally bucked his party, but he also counts Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a longtime ally. He's more hesitant to criticize Trump than are some other Republicans, but he also has said it was "inappropriate" for Trump to ask foreign governments to investigate his political opponents. ... Democrats ... are holding out hope that Alexander will be their hero in the mold of the late Sen. John McCain, whose extraordinary vote derailed the GOP’s effort to repeal Obamacare. Though Alexander would never blindside McConnell the way McCain did, he is widely believed to be a Republican who could be receptive to Democrats’ message that the Senate needs to hear more evidence.
But CNN's Manu Raju is right: There won't be a 51-49 vote for witnesses. There will have to be more than 51 senators in favor.
Very helpful explanation from @mkraju. He explains how Republicans are absolutely committed to no witnesses, no documents, no nothing. Especially @SenCoryGardner @SenMcSallyAZ but just as much @SenThomTillis @SenSusanCollins @MittRomney et al. 100% locked down, 100% for Trump. pic.twitter.com/u8WgNtcue3 — Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 23, 2020
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well I can tell you, Chris that it's unlikely that there would just be four Senators who would break ranks, if they were to be enough, a majority vote, because no Republican Senator wants to be vote number 51. If there is enough support in the Senate to subpoena document, subpoena witnesses, there is more likely going to be 53 or 54 votes. That means there would have to be more than four potentially, in order to move forward, maybe five, maybe six, maybe seven, maybe eight, to do just that. And, at the moment, that is not in the realm of possibility. That could certainly change. But talking to Republican Senators, people who are on the fence, people who are in Republican leadership, it is highly unlikely, at the moment that they will vote to subpoena witnesses and documents. Now, that could change because some Members are still holding their cards pretty close to their vest. Susan Collins has indicated that she would vote to subpoena most likely witnesses and documents, also Mitt Romney has indicated that he wants to subpoena, talk to John Bolton. Lisa Murkowski suggested an openness to it. But who is the fourth? Who is the fifth? Who is the sixth Senator? Uncertain and unclear, at the moment. People look at Lamar Alexander, for one, the Tennessee Republican. I've talked to him many times over the last several weeks, and he's taking it very careful, he's very cautious about it. He's a retiring institutionalist. But he's also very close to Mitch McConnell. He's been critical of the House process too. And there's lot of skeptics that he would be vote number 51. So, if you're going by the theory that you need to have about 53 Senators in order to move forward, getting the other two is on - who those other people are is unclear. Even people like a Cory Gardner, who's up for re-election in Colorado, in a swing state, someone - one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country, he also needs the President's support in order to win reelection. CUOMO: Right. RAJU: He has been very circumspect about saying anything critical about the President so far. So, a lot of questions about whether the Democrats can succeed because their goal right now....
It's not going to happen.
It was never going to happen. I told you on Sunday that Republican senators would inevitably respond to this trial by announcing that they were shocked, shocked, by the Democrats' behavior:
Much of the Senate GOP, along with the White House and the right-wing media, is about to declare that virtually everything the House managers do is a flagrant violation of law, common sense, and the Constitution. Once this happens, even alleged moderates such as Mitt Romney and Susan Collins will join in the fauxtrage -- and you can forget a successful vote to call witnesses or allow further documentary evidence to be considered. The plan is to say that the behavior of the Democrats was so out of bounds that the only way to conclude the process fairly is a vote to dismiss the charges -- and that will happen.
That's more or less what's going on now. We had this after the first day:
Sen. Susan Collins was “stunned” by Rep. Jerry Nadler’s late-night diatribe this week against what he deemed a “cover-up” by Senate Republicans for President Donald Trump — so much so that she wrote a note to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
And we had this:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she was "offended" by House manager Jerry Nadler's comments this week that Republican senators would be involved in a cover-up if they did not agree to call former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial, one of her aides said Thursday.
And now we have this (admittedly from a non-moderate):
John Barrasso (R-Wyo) on Schiff's scathing you-can't-trust-Trump closing tonight: “I think people on our side were absolutely offended by what he had to say.” — Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) January 24, 2020
Besides complaints about boredom (“They’ve got about a one-hour presentation that they gave six hours on Tuesday and eight hours yesterday,” Senator Roy Blunt told The New York Times), Republican senators will say that the Democratic case was presented in an offensive manner. The moderates will suggest that they might have voted for witnesses if Democrats had been nicer. So there won't be witnesses.
Published with permission from No More Mr. Nice Blog


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Joy Reid Wrangles GOP Toady Into Truth-Land About Trump's Trial

Mehdi Hasan and Jack Kingston joined Joy Reid to discuss ( and I use that term loosely ) the GOP approach to their opening statement in Trump 's impeachment trial in the Senate .
It was less a discussion than a 15-minute-long running fact-check , since Kingston spent the entire segment gaslighting the two people who say true things and do their homework .
Reid and Hasan spent the whole segment debunking Kingston 's lies and attempting in vain to get him to recognize any truth whatsoever .
Kingston continually defended Pat Cipollone 's lies on the Senate floor — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut out of the SCIF during the hearings and deposition process .
Hasan and Reid informed him that 48 GOP members were permitted into those hearings .
Kingston still would n't admit to being wrong or Cipollone lying , and claimed what Cipollone actually meant was that Trump and his lawyers were n't permitted to question witnesses during that process .
That 's when Reid went in for the kill .
REID : Let me ask you a question , Jack .
Have you ever sat on a grand jury ?
KINGSTON : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my Congressional -- REID : Gotcha .
I have sat in on a grand jury .
And those SCIF hearings were the equivalent of grand jury hearings .
And I 'm gon na ask you this question .
You have n't sat on a grand jury , but I will tell you that whoever the defendant or the potential defendant is , is not allowed to have counsel or cross-examine witnesses .
The SCIF behaves as a grand jury room .
No grand jury ever allows the potential defendant to cross-examine witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided that they were going to use that as an excuse to claim Donald Trump did not get due process .
However , now Donald Trump has the opportunity to have evidence and witnesses entered into evidence .
He will have the opportunity to have his counsel cross-examine witnesses .
Do you then agree that now that we 're in the point of a trial , that was the grand jury portion of these proceedings .
-- wait a minute .
This is now the trial .
So given that you think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross-examine witnesses , do you then agree that there should be witnesses called for the president 's counsel to cross-examine ?
KINGSTON : I think if we 're going to sit with the Clinton and the Nixon impeachment where the presidents were allowed to have counsel and cross-examine witnesses in the House , then that 's what -- REID : I mean in the Senate .
KINGSTON : Joy -- I 'm trying to get there .
I promise you .
I will get there .
But Nixon and Clinton were both allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff and Nadler denied Trump that ability .
Now -- HASAN : That is false .
You must stop saying things that are false .
Honestly , anything with these GOP ratf*ckers is nearly unwatchable because of their talking over others and their lies , but Reid 's grand jury analogy was so perfect , and painted Kingston so neatly into a corner regarding witnesses , it was absolutely worth the time .
The rest of the segment was more of the same , and Kingston even went full Backwards Day .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , `` Not even mr. Schiff 's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF , '' Hasan asked if Kingston could at least NOW admit that Cipollone lied about that one fact .
You know what Kingston said ?
Get ready .
`` Mehdi , do you agree that I 'm right and you 're wrong ?
That 's the question . ''
THIS is what we are dealing with on the GOP side .
How does one combat this level of gaslighting and delusion ?

Mehdi Hasan and Jack Kingston joined Joy Reid to discuss (and I use that term loosely) the GOP approach to their opening statement in Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. It was less a discussion than a 15-minute-long running fact-check, since Kingston spent the entire segment gaslighting the two people who say true things and do their homework. Reid and Hasan spent the whole segment debunking Kingston's lies and attempting in vain to get him to recognize any truth whatsoever.
Kingston continually defended Pat Cipollone's lies on the Senate floor — in particular, that Republicans were completely shut out of the SCIF during the hearings and deposition process. Hasan and Reid informed him that 48 GOP members were permitted into those hearings. Kingston still wouldn't admit to being wrong or Cipollone lying, and claimed what Cipollone actually meant was that Trump and his lawyers weren't permitted to question witnesses during that process.
That's when Reid went in for the kill.
REID: Let me ask you a question, Jack. Have you ever sat on a grand jury? KINGSTON: Actually, no. REID: Okay. KINGSTON: I keep getting struck from it because of my Congressional -- REID: Gotcha. I have sat in on a grand jury. And those SCIF hearings were the equivalent of grand jury hearings. And I'm gonna ask you this question. You haven't sat on a grand jury, but I will tell you that whoever the defendant or the potential defendant is, is not allowed to have counsel or cross-examine witnesses. The SCIF behaves as a grand jury room. No grand jury ever allows the potential defendant to cross-examine witnesses or have counsel in. The Republicans decided that they were going to use that as an excuse to claim Donald Trump did not get due process. However, now Donald Trump has the opportunity to have evidence and witnesses entered into evidence. He will have the opportunity to have his counsel cross-examine witnesses. Do you then agree that now that we're in the point of a trial, that was the grand jury portion of these proceedings. -- wait a minute. This is now the trial. So given that you think it's very important for the president to cross-examine witnesses, do you then agree that there should be witnesses called for the president's counsel to cross-examine? KINGSTON: I think if we're going to sit with the Clinton and the Nixon impeachment where the presidents were allowed to have counsel and cross-examine witnesses in the House, then that's what -- REID: I mean in the Senate. KINGSTON: I know. REID: You're not answering my question. KINGSTON: Joy -- I'm trying to get there. I promise you. I will get there. But Nixon and Clinton were both allowed to cross-examine witnesses in the house. Schiff and Nadler denied Trump that ability. Now -- HASAN: That is false. You must stop saying things that are false.
Honestly, anything with these GOP ratf*ckers is nearly unwatchable because of their talking over others and their lies, but Reid's grand jury analogy was so perfect, and painted Kingston so neatly into a corner regarding witnesses, it was absolutely worth the time.
The rest of the segment was more of the same, and Kingston even went full Backwards Day. When they actually PLAYED the clip of Cipollone saying, "Not even mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF," Hasan asked if Kingston could at least NOW admit that Cipollone lied about that one fact. You know what Kingston said? Get ready.
"Mehdi, do you agree that I'm right and you're wrong? That's the question."
THIS is what we are dealing with on the GOP side. How does one combat this level of gaslighting and delusion?


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Sen. Mike Braun Thinks Trump Will 'Be Instructed' And Change His Behavior If Acquitted

There are a lot of delusional Republicans in Congress , but it appears Senator Mike Braun is trying to break into the top 5 .
During an interview on Sunday 's Meet The Press , he told Chuck Todd that he thinks Donald Trump has learned his lesson and will be a changed man after his impeachment .
Because , as we have all seen , Donald Trump is a reflective and thoughtful 73-year old man who understands when he makes bad choices and uses that reflection to correct his behavior for the future , right ?
Here is their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President , as you know , he 's going to take acquittal and think , `` I can keep doing this . ''
SENATOR MIKE BRAUN : No , I do n't think that .
Hopefully it 'll be instructive to where -- CHUCK TODD : When you say `` hopefully , '' I mean , what 's the evidence in his lifetime that he takes any sort of whatever it is , a misdemeanor ticket or whatever , and then he accepts that and goes , `` Yeah , I 'll change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I think he 'll put two and two together .
In this case , he was taken to the carpet .
And it 's because -- CHUCK TODD : You think he has regret with what he did ?
SEN. MIKE BRAUN I think he ’ ll be instructed by what has occurred here and certainly any individual would want to avoid whatever might need to be modified to go through this again because the threat has already been out there that we might find something else to impeach on , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we need to get back to what most Americans are interested in : the agenda .
Then they moved onto the Impeachment Trial vote .
Senator Braun says his votes are “ always based on principle , ” and that his vote during impeachment trial is a “ tricky combination ” of representing his electorate and his Constitutional oath .
Obviously he is lying .
He has NO principles .
His vote is solely about pleasing his Master and King , Donald Trump .
CHUCK TODD : Do you believe you 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected you ?
Or are you casting your vote based on your interpretation of the oath you took ?
SENATOR MIKE BRAUN : And it is a tricky combination of both .
Because I came here clearly not to be embroiled in this .
Brought some things from Main Street that I thought would make sense .
And on all of those issues , whether it 's this or what I really came here to do , it 'll always be based on principle .
And here , the case so far -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They 've put together a broad , comprehensive case .
But it was circumstantial in nature .
And then you say , `` Well , you 're splitting hairs . ''
But this is a political process .
Begs the question of all of us as jurors .
You know , and none of us would be there in a normal trial .
Senator Mike Braun , yet another sycophant in the Republican Party with no soul , no spine and no morals .
He plays like he has some , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @

There are a lot of delusional Republicans in Congress, but it appears Senator Mike Braun is trying to break into the top 5. During an interview on Sunday's Meet The Press, he told Chuck Todd that he thinks Donald Trump has learned his lesson and will be a changed man after his impeachment. Because, as we have all seen, Donald Trump is a reflective and thoughtful 73-year old man who understands when he makes bad choices and uses that reflection to correct his behavior for the future, right?
Here is their ridiculous conversation:
CHUCK TODD: This President, as you know, he's going to take acquittal and think, "I can keep doing this." SENATOR MIKE BRAUN: No, I don't think that. Hopefully it'll be instructive to where-- CHUCK TODD: When you say "hopefully," I mean, what's the evidence in his lifetime that he takes any sort of whatever it is, a misdemeanor ticket or whatever, and then he accepts that and goes, "Yeah, I'll change my behavior"? SENATOR MIKE BRAUN: I think he'll put two and two together. In this case, he was taken to the carpet. And it's because-- CHUCK TODD: You think he has regret with what he did? SEN. MIKE BRAUN I think he’ll be instructed by what has occurred here and certainly any individual would want to avoid whatever might need to be modified to go through this again because the threat has already been out there that we might find something else to impeach on, which I think is a mistake because I think we need to get back to what most Americans are interested in: the agenda.
Insert SureJan.gif here.
Then they moved onto the Impeachment Trial vote. Senator Braun says his votes are “always based on principle,” and that his vote during impeachment trial is a “tricky combination” of representing his electorate and his Constitutional oath.
Obviously he is lying. He has NO principles. His vote is solely about pleasing his Master and King, Donald Trump.
CHUCK TODD: Do you believe you're casting your vote for the people that elected you? Or are you casting your vote based on your interpretation of the oath you took? SENATOR MIKE BRAUN: And it is a tricky combination of both. Because I came here clearly not to be embroiled in this. Brought some things from Main Street that I thought would make sense. And on all of those issues, whether it's this or what I really came here to do, it'll always be based on principle. And here, the case so far-- and I'll give them credit. They've put together a broad, comprehensive case. But it was circumstantial in nature. And then you say, "Well, you're splitting hairs." But this is a political process. Begs the question of all of us as jurors. You know, and none of us would be there in a normal trial.
Senator Mike Braun, yet another sycophant in the Republican Party with no soul, no spine and no morals. He plays like he has some, but he's just like all the rest.


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Rick Wilson: Republicans 'Live In Absolute Abject Terror Of Donald Trump'

Republicans found yet another reason for more feigned outrage over the impeachment hearings this week , when Rep. Adam Schiff dared to read a portion of a news report from CBS News , where Trump reportedly threatened GOP Senators that they 'd better vote for his acquittal , or their `` head will be on a pike . ''
Here 's the portion of Schiff 's speech that has a number of them heading for the fainting couches this weekend : During his closing arguments at the Senate impeachment trial on Friday , impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that GOP senators were warned , ‘ Vote against the president — and your head will be on a pike , ’ ” he said .
“ Now , I don ’ t know if that ’ s true.
” He added , “ I hope it ’ s not true , ” before arguing that this is the sort of statement a president who believes himself to be a king would make .
During a panel discussion on this very topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wilson completely dismantled the Republicans ' feigned outrage over Schiff 's remarks , despite the protests and constant interruptions from Trump flack turned spokesperson for a pro-Trump SuperPAC , Steve Cortes , who did his best to ruin Reid 's show which normally airs in the morning , but was delayed for the impeachment hearings that aired live earlier in the day .
REID : I want to get Rick Wilson in as well , because the idea that Donald Trump may be sending signals somehow , that Republicans had better stay on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of average person watching Republicans over the last three years , they get this sense that they really -- I do n't know if it 's fear of him .
I do n't know what it is .
They will not defy him .
Back in the days when you were doing the work of sort of , you know , helping with the communication from Republicans to other Republicans , what would that look like , and do you believe that that kind of a message was sent ?
WILSON : Look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in absolute abject terror of Donald Trump .
They don ’ t want a primary , they don ’ t want Trump to tweet about them , they don ’ t want Trump ’ s crazy people to come out of the woodwork when he says “ Congressman so-and-so doesn ’ t support me enough.
” And they don ’ t want their lives to turn into a burning Trumpian hell.
” Now , Steve 's idea that these people all just leap up every morning and don their sacred robes and bow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absurd .
None of these people down there -- about a third of them are like the opportunists who want to play the game and get their legislative goals .
About a third of them are the true cult believers .
And the rest of them are absolutely terrified of Donald Trump every day .
They loathe him and yet they are trapped in this world with him .
They ca n't move .
They ca n't budge .
They are so locked down by their fear of Trump 's rage , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said earlier in the thing he was describing Trump as a brawler and pugnacious .
No .
He is an extortionist .
He is a bully .
He is a president who happens to be in the Oval Office right now , but he 's the First Thug .
This is not a guy who inspires love and inspiration .
He inspires terror .
And that 's working for them right now .
That works for this White House , and the reason -- CORTES : I 'd encourage you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'd feel nothing by patriotism .
WILSON : Thanks , Steve .
If I want to do that , I ’ ll just watch Nuremberg videos .
Followed by Cortes attempting to yell over Wilson before Reid shut him down and allowed Wilson to finish his thoughts .
WILSON : Donald trump inspires terror in them because he tweets about them , he threatens them with primaries .
He has altered the structure of the Republican party and removed all the incentives that were ideological or political and they are now based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CORTES : You just compared the deplorables to Nazis .
After more feigned outrage from Cortes , Reid intervened and called Cortes out for crying about Wilson making statements about Trump and his supporters , while ignoring the childish idiocy we see from Trump everyday as exemplified in the tweet below : As Reid explained before moving onto one of the other guests `` Trump should set the example .
He 's the one who should be best . ''
And MSNBC should quit having these gaslighting Trumpsters on to pollute our airways @

Republicans found yet another reason for more feigned outrage over the impeachment hearings this week, when Rep. Adam Schiff dared to read a portion of a news report from CBS News, where Trump reportedly threatened GOP Senators that they'd better vote for his acquittal, or their "head will be on a pike."
Here's the portion of Schiff's speech that has a number of them heading for the fainting couches this weekend:
During his closing arguments at the Senate impeachment trial on Friday, impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff made a comment that set some Republicans off. “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that GOP senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president — and your head will be on a pike,’” he said. “Now, I don’t know if that’s true.” He added, “I hope it’s not true,” before arguing that this is the sort of statement a president who believes himself to be a king would make.
During a panel discussion on this very topic on MSNBC Saturday evening, never-Trumper Rick Wilson completely dismantled the Republicans' feigned outrage over Schiff's remarks, despite the protests and constant interruptions from Trump flack turned spokesperson for a pro-Trump SuperPAC, Steve Cortes, who did his best to ruin Reid's show which normally airs in the morning, but was delayed for the impeachment hearings that aired live earlier in the day.
REID: I want to get Rick Wilson in as well, because the idea that Donald Trump may be sending signals somehow, that Republicans had better stay on line, I think to the sort of average person watching Republicans over the last three years, they get this sense that they really -- I don't know if it's fear of him. I don't know what it is. They will not defy him. Back in the days when you were doing the work of sort of, you know, helping with the communication from Republicans to other Republicans, what would that look like, and do you believe that that kind of a message was sent? WILSON: Look, Donald Trump – these guys live in absolute abject terror of Donald Trump. They don’t want a primary, they don’t want Trump to tweet about them, they don’t want Trump’s crazy people to come out of the woodwork when he says “ Congressman so-and-so doesn’t support me enough.” And they don’t want their lives to turn into a burning Trumpian hell.” Now, Steve's idea that these people all just leap up every morning and don their sacred robes and bow to the great Orange god is completely absurd. None of these people down there -- about a third of them are like the opportunists who want to play the game and get their legislative goals. About a third of them are the true cult believers. And the rest of them are absolutely terrified of Donald Trump every day. They loathe him and yet they are trapped in this world with him. They can't move. They can't budge. They are so locked down by their fear of Trump's rage, of Trump's uncontrolled temper. You know, he said earlier in the thing he was describing Trump as a brawler and pugnacious. No. He is an extortionist. He is a bully. He is a president who happens to be in the Oval Office right now, but he's the First Thug. This is not a guy who inspires love and inspiration. He inspires terror. And that's working for them right now. That works for this White House, and the reason --
CORTES: I'd encourage you to go to a Trump rally because you'd feel nothing by patriotism. WILSON: Thanks, Steve. If I want to do that, I’ll just watch Nuremberg videos.
Followed by Cortes attempting to yell over Wilson before Reid shut him down and allowed Wilson to finish his thoughts.
WILSON: Donald trump inspires terror in them because he tweets about them, he threatens them with primaries. He has altered the structure of the Republican party and removed all the incentives that were ideological or political and they are now based on fear of retention of their offices. CORTES: You just compared the deplorables to Nazis.
After more feigned outrage from Cortes, Reid intervened and called Cortes out for crying about Wilson making statements about Trump and his supporters, while ignoring the childish idiocy we see from Trump everyday as exemplified in the tweet below:
Sleepyeyes Chuck Todd of Meet the Corrupt Press, just had a “totally” softball interview with conman Adam Schiff, never even calling Shifty out on his fraudulent statement to Congress, where he made up ALL of the words of my conversation with the Ukrainian President! FAKE NEWS — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2020
As Reid explained before moving onto one of the other guests "Trump should set the example. He's the one who should be best."
And MSNBC should quit having these gaslighting Trumpsters on to pollute our airways.


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Fox Host Helps Republicans Whine About Democrats Accusing Them Of A Coverup

As we 've already discussed here , and as Steve M. rightfully predicted last week , Senate Republicans have been latching onto any excuse they can find to refuse to allow witnesses and to help coverup Trump 's criminality during this sham of an impeachment `` trial '' we 've been watching in the Senate .
After Sen. Lisa Murkowski was apparently very deeply offended that Jerrold Nadler dared to call these Trump enablers out for doing exactly that , Fox host Paul Gigot decided to get in on the act this Saturday during some of their coverage following round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance , where they kicked things off telling one lie after another .
Here 's Gigot and his fellow Wall Street Journal opinion writer Kyle Peterson heaping praise on Trump 's defense team and giving credence to the assertion that Republican Senators should n't honor their constitutional duty of acting as a check on this corrupt administration if they somehow feel slighted by the Democrats , heaven forbid , telling them an uncomfortable truth .
GIGOT : And Jerrold Nadler calling the Senate out and saying you 're ... some of you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good way to persuade Senators .
PETERSON : Yeah , just moving to Dan 's point , one of the best moments I thought Saturday morning for the Republican and the White House lawyers was they ran a super-cut of the U.S. ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland , his testimony saying several times , I presume , I presume , that was a personal presumption , that would be pure guess work on my part , which just goes to show that the House Democrats have not wrapped this up tightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct testimony as to president Trump 's state of mind , what exactly happened with the hold on the aid .
Those are still black boxes and so to your point , I mean , that 's why the Democrats are moving into this stronger rhetoric .

As we've already discussed here, and as Steve M. rightfully predicted last week, Senate Republicans have been latching onto any excuse they can find to refuse to allow witnesses and to help coverup Trump's criminality during this sham of an impeachment "trial" we've been watching in the Senate.
After Sen. Lisa Murkowski was apparently very deeply offended that Jerrold Nadler dared to call these Trump enablers out for doing exactly that, Fox host Paul Gigot decided to get in on the act this Saturday during some of their coverage following round one of the Trump lawyers' pathetic performance, where they kicked things off telling one lie after another.
Here's Gigot and his fellow Wall Street Journal opinion writer Kyle Peterson heaping praise on Trump's defense team and giving credence to the assertion that Republican Senators shouldn't honor their constitutional duty of acting as a check on this corrupt administration if they somehow feel slighted by the Democrats, heaven forbid, telling them an uncomfortable truth.


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Rep. Adam Schiff: 'This Is A Wrathful And Vindictive President'

In a wide-ranging interview on Meet the Press Sunday , Rep. Adam Schiff had thoughts about Trump 's threats aimed at him , Republican sensitive feelings , the need to call witnesses and introduce evidence in the trial , and more .
CHUCK TODD : What do you make of the criticism that some Republican senators , who you might want to see vote for witnesses , did n't like your `` head on a pike '' comment ?
Murkowski , Collins , and Ernst .
All three Republican senators who are -- might be open to witnesses thought you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , I do n't think it was personal to refer to the CBS story .
What may be personal though , and I think I have to be very candid about this , is I made the argument that it 's going to require moral courage to stand up to this president .
And this is a wrathful and vindictive president .
I do n't think there 's any doubt about it .
And if you think there is , look at the president 's tweets about me today , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CHUCK TODD : Do you take that as a threat ?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF : I think it 's intended to be .
Schiff also addressed Chuck Todd 's ridiculously framed question about Hunter Biden as a witness , where he asked a former U.S. Attorney and the lead impeachment manager , `` What are you afraid of ? ''
As if fear is a driver .
Schiff shattered that frame forever : The question is : Should the trial be used as a vehicle to smear his opponent ?
Is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it to get to the truth ?
Because if it 's to get to the truth , Hunter Biden ca n't tell us anything about the withholding of the military funding .
Hunter Biden ca n't tell us why the president would n't let the president of Ukraine into the Oval Office .
Hunter Biden ca n't tell us anything about that .
And so , you know , it 's a false choice to say , `` Well , if the House gets to call the witnesses , does n't the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , it 's not a question of what I 'm afraid of .
I 'm not afraid of anything.And so , you know , it 's a false choice to say , `` Well , if the House gets to call the witnesses , does n't the president ? ''
Yes , we both get to call witnesses .
We both get to call relevant ones .
And one other point on this , Chuck , which is important .
We have a very capable justice sitting right behind me who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We trust the Supreme Court justice , the chief justice , to make those decisions .
And one final thing , if you will … The president 's team is pushing out the argument , `` We do n't have time to call witnesses .
We 'd really love to have these people testify .
We just do n't have time to do it .
It would be too inconvenient . ''
That 's a dodge .
We have a justice who can make decisions if there 's any legitimate claim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sekulow continued to push Putin 's talking points as a credible defense .
CHUCK TODD : The other part of the president 's defense is to call into question the investigators , whether it 's you or the intelligence community .
Jay Sekulow basically said , `` The president had every – has every right to question , '' essentially defending the idea that the president does have suspicions about Ukraine 's role in 2016 , going after the intelligence community .
Were you surprised that the president 's counsel did that on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ADAM SCHIFF : I was surprised .
I think it was a huge mistake .
Basically , what he did , and this was really following the presentation we made the day before about the threat the president poses to the country because he continues to choose to believe people like Rudy Giuliani , he continues to believe Russian propaganda over his own intelligence agencies , over his own FBI director and that makes him dangerous to our country .
And what do they do ?
They go and double down on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hacked the DNC server .
It 's astonishing .
And , you know , for -- on the first day of the president 's defense to say , `` The president should disbelieve his own intelligence agencies .
He has every right to believe Vladimir Putin , '' I would n't want to be making that argument .
The best part of this interview was how triggered Dirty Don was :

In a wide-ranging interview on Meet the Press Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff had thoughts about Trump's threats aimed at him, Republican sensitive feelings, the need to call witnesses and introduce evidence in the trial, and more.
On Trump's tweeted threat:
CHUCK TODD: What do you make of the criticism that some Republican senators, who you might want to see vote for witnesses, didn't like your "head on a pike" comment? Murkowski, Collins, and Ernst. All three Republican senators who are -- might be open to witnesses thought you got too personal. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I don't think it was personal to refer to the CBS story. What may be personal though, and I think I have to be very candid about this, is I made the argument that it's going to require moral courage to stand up to this president. And this is a wrathful and vindictive president. I don't think there's any doubt about it. And if you think there is, look at the president's tweets about me today, saying that I should pay a price. CHUCK TODD: Do you take that as a threat? REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: I think it's intended to be.
Schiff also addressed Chuck Todd's ridiculously framed question about Hunter Biden as a witness, where he asked a former U.S. Attorney and the lead impeachment manager, "What are you afraid of?" As if fear is a driver. Schiff shattered that frame forever:
The question is: Should the trial be used as a vehicle to smear his opponent? Is that the purpose of a Senate trial? Or is it to get to the truth? Because if it's to get to the truth, Hunter Biden can't tell us anything about the withholding of the military funding. Hunter Biden can't tell us why the president wouldn't let the president of Ukraine into the Oval Office. Hunter Biden can't tell us anything about that. And so, you know, it's a false choice to say, "Well, if the House gets to call the witnesses, doesn't the president?" REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF: Well, it's not a question of what I'm afraid of. I'm not afraid of anything.And so, you know, it's a false choice to say, "Well, if the House gets to call the witnesses, doesn't the president?" Yes, we both get to call witnesses. We both get to call relevant ones. And one other point on this, Chuck, which is important. We have a very capable justice sitting right behind me who can make decisions about the materiality of witnesses. We trust the Supreme Court justice, the chief justice, to make those decisions. And one final thing, if you will … The president's team is pushing out the argument, "We don't have time to call witnesses. We'd really love to have these people testify. We just don't have time to do it. It would be too inconvenient." That's a dodge. We have a justice who can make decisions if there's any legitimate claim of privilege.
Schiff was also surprised Jay Sekulow continued to push Putin's talking points as a credible defense.
CHUCK TODD: The other part of the president's defense is to call into question the investigators, whether it's you or the intelligence community. Jay Sekulow basically said, "The president had every – has every right to question," essentially defending the idea that the president does have suspicions about Ukraine's role in 2016, going after the intelligence community. Were you surprised that the president's counsel did that on the floor of the Senate? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: I was surprised. I think it was a huge mistake. Basically, what he did, and this was really following the presentation we made the day before about the threat the president poses to the country because he continues to choose to believe people like Rudy Giuliani, he continues to believe Russian propaganda over his own intelligence agencies, over his own FBI director and that makes him dangerous to our country. And what do they do? They go and double down on that same crazy conspiracy theory, that Ukraine hacked the DNC server. It's astonishing. And, you know, for -- on the first day of the president's defense to say, "The president should disbelieve his own intelligence agencies. He has every right to believe Vladimir Putin," I wouldn't want to be making that argument.
The best part of this interview was how triggered Dirty Don was:


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Ali Velshi Reminds Republicans This Impeachment Trial Is Bigger Than Saving Their Senate Seats

Ali Velshi closed the first hour of his show this Saturday with a reminder for Republicans that history will not be kind to them if they choose to coverup for Trump 's criminality and do n't allow evidence , testimony and at least the appearance of a fair trial in the Senate .
But there have been some strange messages emanating from the U.S. Senate this week , helped along by Trump 's lawyers .
Rather than arguing that Trump 's demonstrated wrongdoing is n't worthy of his removal from office , they have tried to make the case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition that Trump unlawfully usurped the constitutionally mandated role of appropriations from Congress , and the legally mandated role of deciding where money goes , when he withheld Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine .
No recognition that Trump undermined a strategic ally , Ukraine , involved in a real war with an active adversary , Russia , for his political , personal gain .
Rather , Trump 's defenders attempt to make the case that the process itself , a process that is prescribed by the constitution , undermines democracy and threatens the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the White House counsel Pat Cipollone , actually called this , the impeachment trial , election interference , ignoring the real election interference that his boss and client , continue to refuse to acknowledge .
Rather than arguing on the merit , Cipollone and his team argued that this trial should n't even be happening .
If Trump supporters are going to win this trial , they need to win it on its merits , not by default .
A default win would be an acquittal , not the exoneration that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merits means evidence , not procedural tactics , not made for TV sound bites , and not the willful suppression of evidence .
Senators , you need to hear the full case .
Try the whole truth , and then and only then cast your vote , knowing that you left no stone unturned in the greatest constitutionally mandated role you are ever likely to play as United States Senators .
History wo n't care if it takes another week or two .
And for those Senators in potentially vulnerable seats or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but for which they will have to explain their actions to constituents later this year , this is bigger than any election .
Right is right , and if doing right costs someone a seat in the United States Senate , that 's a good deal for democracy .
Because the lenses through which Senators and Trump supports in this trial will be seen will not be the lens of the Republican party .
They will be the lenses of history , justice and the truth .

Ali Velshi closed the first hour of his show this Saturday with a reminder for Republicans that history will not be kind to them if they choose to coverup for Trump's criminality and don't allow evidence, testimony and at least the appearance of a fair trial in the Senate.
But there have been some strange messages emanating from the U.S. Senate this week, helped along by Trump's lawyers.
Rather than arguing that Trump's demonstrated wrongdoing isn't worthy of his removal from office, they have tried to make the case that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever – no recognition that Trump unlawfully usurped the constitutionally mandated role of appropriations from Congress, and the legally mandated role of deciding where money goes, when he withheld Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine.
No recognition that Trump undermined a strategic ally, Ukraine, involved in a real war with an active adversary, Russia, for his political, personal gain.
Rather, Trump's defenders attempt to make the case that the process itself, a process that is prescribed by the constitution, undermines democracy and threatens the next election.
Trump's lead attorney, the White House counsel Pat Cipollone, actually called this, the impeachment trial, election interference, ignoring the real election interference that his boss and client, continue to refuse to acknowledge.
Rather than arguing on the merit, Cipollone and his team argued that this trial shouldn't even be happening.
If Trump supporters are going to win this trial, they need to win it on its merits, not by default. A default win would be an acquittal, not the exoneration that Trump seeks. And a win on the merits means evidence, not procedural tactics, not made for TV sound bites, and not the willful suppression of evidence.
Senators, you need to hear the full case. Try the whole truth, and then and only then cast your vote, knowing that you left no stone unturned in the greatest constitutionally mandated role you are ever likely to play as United States Senators.
History won't care if it takes another week or two. And for those Senators in potentially vulnerable seats or even in seats that aren't vulnerable, but for which they will have to explain their actions to constituents later this year, this is bigger than any election.
Right is right, and if doing right costs someone a seat in the United States Senate, that's a good deal for democracy. Because the lenses through which Senators and Trump supports in this trial will be seen will not be the lens of the Republican party. They will be the lenses of history, justice and the truth.


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Rep. Demings Blasts Trump's Schiff Threat: 'Totally Inappropriate'

Impeachment manager Rep. Val Demings condemned Donald Trump 's overt threat to Rep. Adam Schiff on Twitter earlier Sunday morning and warned him that it 's beneath the office of the President of the United States .
`` Adam Schiff , as well as house managers , as well as the president 's lawyers , as well as every senator in the chamber , they 're doing their job , '' Demings said .
Adam Schiff has done an exceptional job in terms of leading this case against the president which is -- the evidence is overwhelming . ''
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the facts , Rep. Demings had a message for everyone .
`` I would just say to the American people , this is totally inappropriate , '' she said .
`` It is totally a threat , if you will , against the process of this investigation and of this trial . ''
`` We are defenders of the constitution , and regardless of what inappropriate comments or tweets or things come out , or threats that come out of the president , out of the White House , we will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vowed .
I really believe that Trump should be banned from Twitter at this point .
It 's just a vehicle for him to mobilize his trolls and bots to bolster his authoritarianism .
He is , plain and simple , a bully and he should be deplatformed .

Impeachment manager Rep. Val Demings condemned Donald Trump's overt threat to Rep. Adam Schiff on Twitter earlier Sunday morning and warned him that it's beneath the office of the President of the United States.
"Adam Schiff, as well as house managers, as well as the president's lawyers, as well as every senator in the chamber, they're doing their job," Demings said. Adam Schiff has done an exceptional job in terms of leading this case against the president which is -- the evidence is overwhelming."
After noting that Trump hurls insults without engaging with the facts, Rep. Demings had a message for everyone.
"I would just say to the American people, this is totally inappropriate," she said. "It is totally a threat, if you will, against the process of this investigation and of this trial."
" We are defenders of the constitution, and regardless of what inappropriate comments or tweets or things come out, or threats that come out of the president, out of the White House, we will continue to do our job," she vowed.
I really believe that Trump should be banned from Twitter at this point. It's just a vehicle for him to mobilize his trolls and bots to bolster his authoritarianism. He is, plain and simple, a bully and he should be deplatformed.


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Jake Tapper Scoffs At James Lankford's Absurd Claim That Trump Doesn't Remember Lev Parnas

In today 's edition of a Republican Senator embarrassing himself on national television , we bring you this Exhibit A of brownnosing , Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma .
Lankford said , with a straight face no less , that Trump ca n't be expected to remember Lev Parnas just because they sat at a dinner table together for 90 minutes , discussing the ousting of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
History will not be kind to these partisan hacks like Lankford whose faith is to Donald Trump , and not the United States .
Republican Sen. James Lankford ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly released audio of a conversation between Trump and Lev Parnas that raises questions about whether Trump lied about not knowing the indicted businessman .
Lankford said the audio of the meeting of Trump and Parnas , a Rudy Giuliani associate , does n't show that Trump was lying when he said he did not know the Ukrainian businessman .
`` It 's a dinner , 90 minutes of a dinner , hard to be able to say to the president who meets 1,000 people a day , 'OK , do you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with you a year and a half ago ? ''
Lankford said on CNN 's `` State of the Union . ''
CNN host Jake Tapper pressed Lankford , saying that the newly released audio shows Trump did not tell the truth .
Lankford responded by suggesting that it is reasonable for him to not recall meeting someone he had at least one lengthy conversation with .
`` You meet a lot of people , I meet a lot of people , certainly the president meets a lot of people , '' Lankford @ @

In today's edition of a Republican Senator embarrassing himself on national television, we bring you this Exhibit A of brownnosing, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma. Lankford said, with a straight face no less, that Trump can't be expected to remember Lev Parnas just because they sat at a dinner table together for 90 minutes, discussing the ousting of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
History will not be kind to these partisan hacks like Lankford whose faith is to Donald Trump, and not the United States.
Source: The Hill


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Parnas Attorney Joseph Bondy Says Client Has More Recordings Of Trump

During an interview with Saturday evening with Lev Parnas ' attorney Joseph Bondy discussing the newly released recording of Trump ordering associates to `` take her out '' about Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , Bondy told CNN 's Anderson Cooper that there may be more to come : During an interview with CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper Saturday night , Bondy said he wasn ’ t sure why Fruman made the recordings .
“ I don ’ t know why he made the recordings , ” Bondy said .
“ Some people make recordings .
They like to take pictures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of motive beyond that.
” After Bondy confirmed that Fruman also sent the recordings to Parnas , Cooper asked Bondy if his client has more recordings with Trump .
“ Yes , ” Bondy said , regarding Parnas having more recordings and the recordings also featuring Trump .
When pressed on whether Parnas plans to release the recordings , Bondy replied “ perhaps ” and argued that the latest anti-Yovanovitch recording by Trump was “ important ” to release to the public .
“ We ’ ve sent recordings to the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This seems to be the recording that certainly addresses the issue of the Ambassador and we thought it was really important to get that recording out in public today .
”

During an interview with Saturday evening with Lev Parnas' attorney Joseph Bondy discussing the newly released recording of Trump ordering associates to "take her out" about Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Bondy told CNN's Anderson Cooper that there may be more to come:
During an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper Saturday night, Bondy said he wasn’t sure why Fruman made the recordings.
“I don’t know why he made the recordings,” Bondy said. “Some people make recordings. They like to take pictures. I can’t ascribe any kind of motive beyond that.”
After Bondy confirmed that Fruman also sent the recordings to Parnas, Cooper asked Bondy if his client has more recordings with Trump.
“Yes,” Bondy said, regarding Parnas having more recordings and the recordings also featuring Trump.
When pressed on whether Parnas plans to release the recordings, Bondy replied “perhaps” and argued that the latest anti-Yovanovitch recording by Trump was “important” to release to the public.
“We’ve sent recordings to the House Intelligence Committee also,” Bondy said. “This seems to be the recording that certainly addresses the issue of the Ambassador and we thought it was really important to get that recording out in public today.”


crooksandliars--2020-01-26--Twitter Erupts After Trump Rage-Tweets Threats To Adam Schiff

Donald Trump is up and rage-tweeting early on this Sunday morning .
Today 's target is impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff , since he is the one who presented a solid , airtight case for impeachment and removal .
After retweeting his friends Mark Levin and others , Trump turned his rage on Adam Schiff : Ah , the `` illegally making up '' his phone call .
Apparently parody is a crime now .
This is just a petty , chickensh*t deflection as usual .
That 's just all a distraction from his illegal acts .
But here comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid the price for defending the Constitution and the Rule of Law ?
What price should he pay ?
Should he be `` taken out '' the same way Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was ?
As always , Twitter sprang into action .
Oh yes , he had his defenders -- Tom Fitton , for example -- but the reaction was swift and negative , for the most part .
Is n't threatening a member of Congress a crime ?
Perhaps a new article of impeachment ought to be drafted .
Let 's just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he runs away crying like bullies always do when they 're exposed .

Donald Trump is up and rage-tweeting early on this Sunday morning. Today's target is impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, since he is the one who presented a solid, airtight case for impeachment and removal.
After retweeting his friends Mark Levin and others, Trump turned his rage on Adam Schiff:
The Impeachment Hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before. In just two hours the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats have seen their phony case absolutely shredded. Shifty is now exposed for illegally making up my phone call, & more! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2020
Ah, the "illegally making up" his phone call. Apparently parody is a crime now. This is just a petty, chickensh*t deflection as usual. That's just all a distraction from his illegal acts.
But here comes the threat:
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2020
He has not yet paid the price for defending the Constitution and the Rule of Law? What price should he pay? Should he be "taken out" the same way Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was?
As always, Twitter sprang into action. Oh yes, he had his defenders -- Tom Fitton, for example -- but the reaction was swift and negative, for the most part.
What is this shit? A threat? An actual threat that a politician will "pay the price" for calling you to account? — Michael Marshall Smith (@ememess) January 26, 2020
Is this the US President threatening the life of a US Congressman, a leader of the opposition party? Does not really matter: Fact we are having a legitimate debate about whether or not President is ordering hit on Congressman means we have already lost our way as a republic. — David Rothschild (@DavMicRot) January 26, 2020
Donald Trump is nothing but a divider-in-chief. Has to attack his political opponents. Has to inspire hate. Has to create distrust in government. This is what demagogues do to fear-monger for votes. Not one cross aisle unifying policy. This administration is a total farce — ♻🇺🇸 Christopher Zullo (@ChrisJZullo) January 26, 2020
Is this a death threat? You’re a dangerous sociopath...and should be convicted and removed from office immediately... #Trump #AdamSchiff — Andy Ostroy (@AndyOstroy) January 26, 2020
Sir, everybody is laughing at you because of your lawyers. Michael Cohen is in federal prison and now Alan Dershowitz called you “destabilizing and unpredictable” and said Trump “openly embraces fringe conspiracy theories peddled by extremists.” Sad. — Jennifer Taub (@jentaub) January 26, 2020
Isn't threatening a member of Congress a crime? Perhaps a new article of impeachment ought to be drafted. Let's just impeach him over and over again until he runs away crying like bullies always do when they're exposed.


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Fox Host Challenges Trump Attorney Dershowitz Over Flip-Flop On Impeachment

Trump defense attorney Alan Dershowitz , whom I assume will be making an appearance on the floor of the Senate this week , to make the ridiculous claim that abuse of power is n't an impeachable offense , ( which , as one Georgetown law professor explained , has “ no sound basis ” in history and law ) made an appearance on this weekend 's Fox News Sunday , and was actually confronted by host Chris Wallace about his shifting stance on what is an impeachable offense .
Wallace rolled out the tape of both Dershowitz and Trump lickspittle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton impeachment days , and here was Dershowitz 's lame defense for his blatant hypocrisy : During an interview on Fox News Sunday , Wallace played a clip of Dershowitz discussing President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment in 1998 in which Dershowitz argued that “ if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty , you don ’ t need technical crime.
” Considering Dershowitz will now be arguing before the Senate that Trump can ’ t be impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t detail a “ technical crime , ” Wallace confronted the retired Harvard law professor on his apparent flip-flop .
“ Let me ask about this , because when you argue that case , that what didn ’ t have to be a crime in the Clinton impeachment , I find it very hard to believe that you had not studied the only other presidential impeachment in history , which was the [ Andrew ] Johnson impeachment , ” Wallace said .
“ So suddenly discovering that the key issue is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re too good a lawyer not to have studied that back in 1998.
” Dershowitz attempted to argue that crime wasn ’ t an issue in the Clinton impeachment because the then-president was charged with a crime , prompting the Fox host to point out that “ we just put the sound bite up where you said it doesn ’ t have to be a crime.
” “ I ’ ve been immersing myself in dusty old books and I ’ ve concluded that no , it has to be a crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a technical crime , ” Dershowitz countered .
“ That ’ s what scholars do—that ’ s what academics do.
” The lawyer also highlighted that Democrats and liberals have also changed their stances on impeachment , noting that fellow Harvard alum Laurence Tribe once said a sitting president couldn ’ t be prosecuted but has since argued the opposite .
“ It ’ s also what lawyers do , which is depending on the facts of the case and the side they ’ re arguing , they find an argument to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given Dershowitz 's past affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein , it 's amazing that they 'd want this guy showing his face in public to defend Trump anywhere , but that 's just the way this bunch rolls .
Everything is in-your-face with the open corruption and blatant hypocrisy with these thugs , and the more brazen , the better as far as they 're concerned .

Trump defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, whom I assume will be making an appearance on the floor of the Senate this week, to make the ridiculous claim that abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense, (which, as one Georgetown law professor explained, has “no sound basis” in history and law) made an appearance on this weekend's Fox News Sunday, and was actually confronted by host Chris Wallace about his shifting stance on what is an impeachable offense.
Wallace rolled out the tape of both Dershowitz and Trump lickspittle Sen. Lindsey Graham from back during the Clinton impeachment days, and here was Dershowitz's lame defense for his blatant hypocrisy:
During an interview on Fox News Sunday, Wallace played a clip of Dershowitz discussing President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 in which Dershowitz argued that “if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need technical crime.” Considering Dershowitz will now be arguing before the Senate that Trump can’t be impeached because the House’s articles don’t detail a “technical crime,” Wallace confronted the retired Harvard law professor on his apparent flip-flop. “Let me ask about this, because when you argue that case, that what didn’t have to be a crime in the Clinton impeachment, I find it very hard to believe that you had not studied the only other presidential impeachment in history, which was the [Andrew] Johnson impeachment,” Wallace said. “So suddenly discovering that the key issue is what Justice Curtis argued in 1860, you’re too good a lawyer not to have studied that back in 1998.” Dershowitz attempted to argue that crime wasn’t an issue in the Clinton impeachment because the then-president was charged with a crime, prompting the Fox host to point out that “we just put the sound bite up where you said it doesn’t have to be a crime.” “I’ve been immersing myself in dusty old books and I’ve concluded that no, it has to be a crime, it doesn’t have to be a technical crime,” Dershowitz countered. “That’s what scholars do—that’s what academics do.” The lawyer also highlighted that Democrats and liberals have also changed their stances on impeachment, noting that fellow Harvard alum Laurence Tribe once said a sitting president couldn’t be prosecuted but has since argued the opposite. “It’s also what lawyers do, which is depending on the facts of the case and the side they’re arguing, they find an argument to make,” Wallace shot back.
Given Dershowitz's past affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein, it's amazing that they'd want this guy showing his face in public to defend Trump anywhere, but that's just the way this bunch rolls. Everything is in-your-face with the open corruption and blatant hypocrisy with these thugs, and the more brazen, the better as far as they're concerned.


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Mass Flashbacks On Twitter As Ken 'Blue Dress' Starr Bemoans 'Age Of Impeachment'

While much of twitter wants to remind you that Ken Starr is a bad messenger right now because of his @ @ @ @ @ , I want to remind you that Ken Starr is a bad messenger right now @ @ @ @ @ Baylor .

And so the scurrilous Ken Starr has the vile audacity to compare lawful impeachment - of which he has been a part - to "domestic warfare."
Because that's what they want. The end of the rule of law, and a war they can win with brute force. pic.twitter.com/EsZH978GFA
— Eric Garland (@ericgarland) January 27, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--Lindsey Graham And His Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

For Senator Lindsey Graham , today was to be just another day to mark off the calendar before the GOP could run a steamroller over the Constitution for good , by voting 53-47 against having any witness testimony in Trump 's impeachment trial .
Well , someone FUBARed that plan in a big way .
John Bolton 's manuscript was leaked , and in it , Bolton reveals conversations in which Donald John Trump told him that the Ukraine aid would not be released unless they announced investigations into the Bidens .
Suddenly the pressure on Trump 's GOP to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to be taking it the hardest .
He cancelled a planned presser for Monday morning , and is apparently telling Trump he needs to let the Senate see the manuscript .
`` LET '' the Senate see it ?
If this is n't hard evidence of the iron grip in which Trumpin* holds this shell of a political party , I do n't know what is .
Why ?
I 'll tell you .
• Trump does n't LET the Senate see anything .
The GOP can subpoena Bolton at any time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Bolton has 1st Amendment rights .
He can say whatever he wants , whenever he wants .
He 's being a shady SOB for not showing the moral courage his employees did in the House proceedings .
If Twitter is any indication , this is the Monday-est Monday ever for Lindsey Graham .
`` I do n't know if I trust anybody right now ! ''
Ooooooooh , nooo .
Poor Lindsey .
Where 's the fainting couch when you need it ?

For Senator Lindsey Graham, today was to be just another day to mark off the calendar before the GOP could run a steamroller over the Constitution for good, by voting 53-47 against having any witness testimony in Trump's impeachment trial. Well, someone FUBARed that plan in a big way. John Bolton's manuscript was leaked, and in it, Bolton reveals conversations in which Donald John Trump told him that the Ukraine aid would not be released unless they announced investigations into the Bidens.
Ruh-roh.
Suddenly the pressure on Trump's GOP to allow witnesses is much stronger. Graham seems to be taking it the hardest. He cancelled a planned presser for Monday morning, and is apparently telling Trump he needs to let the Senate see the manuscript.
"LET" the Senate see it? If this isn't hard evidence of the iron grip in which Trumpin* holds this shell of a political party, I don't know what is. Why? I'll tell you.
Trump doesn't LET the Senate see anything. The GOP can subpoena Bolton at any time. Trump has ZERO say about it.
Bolton has 1st Amendment rights. He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He's being a shady SOB for not showing the moral courage his employees did in the House proceedings.
If Twitter is any indication, this is the Monday-est Monday ever for Lindsey Graham.
I asked @LindseyGrahamSC if he wants to subpoena the Bolton book manuscript.
He said: “I want to know what's in the manuscript. Yeah, I think that’s important.” — Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) January 27, 2020
As Lindsey Graham cowers under his bed in light of the John Bolton news, remember that he's actually on the (admittedly SC) ballot this fall. — emptywheel (@emptywheel) January 27, 2020
Lindsey Graham skipped a press conference just to shamelessly stand by a President he didn’t even vote for.
It's time to stop the political games. As Senator, I will fight for South Carolina values of fairness, honesty, and justice. https://t.co/kVJCzSJp0u — Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) January 27, 2020
“Do you trust John Bolton?” I ask.
“I don’t know if I trust anybody right now,” @LindseyGrahamSC retorts — Matt Laslo (@MattLaslo) January 27, 2020
El. Oh. El.
"I don't know if I trust anybody right now!" Ooooooooh, nooo. Poor Lindsey. Where's the fainting couch when you need it?
(*Trump + Putin = Trumpin — I just made that up right now.)


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--LIVESTREAM:  Senate Impeachment Trial Continues

Rudy Giuliani ca n't seem to make up his mind whether it would be better for the Senate to hold @ @ @ @ @ them to dismiss it .


crooksandliars--2020-01-27--ALL The Democrats Can 'Get 'Er Done'

ALL The Democrats Can 'Get 'Er Done'

The biggest issue for all Democrats is that their candidate can beat Trump .
Uhm yeah .
Of course .
He is an existential threat .
They also care about “ authenticity ” which is a very vague concept and I have no idea what it means .
If it means someone you ’ d want to have a beer with , or a latte with , or a joint with , then it ’ s ridiculous .
They ’ re all politicians .
None of them just let it all hang out because they are trying to appeal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they can .
It ’ s not easy .
They think about how to do that because to not think about it would be political malpractice .
If it means they don ’ t appear to be pandering , then fine .
But don ’ t kid yourself .
They all pander .
Some just have a personality that makes it seem as if they aren ’ t .
As for policy and experience .
Of course .
These are always metrics by which people make decisions about who to hire or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s telling that those are so much less important than “ beating Trump ” and “ authenticity.
” Anyway , if you ’ re worried about who can beat Trump .
According to this poll — all of them can : The presidential race is a referendum on Trump .
And he is not popular .
You can ’ t take anything for granted .
They cheat .
But while we all have our own ideas about who can beat him ( or , more specifically , who is most vulnerable to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know for sure .
The reason we are all so incredibly emotional and overwrought about all this is because the stakes are so high .
I think we ’ ve been fortunate that the worst hasn ’ t happened during the first three years .
Every day it doesn ’ t happen is a lucky day .
But I don ’ t know how many more lucky days we have left .
We can ’ t afford to take a chance on another four years .
He ’ s getting worse .

The biggest issue for all Democrats is that their candidate can beat Trump. Uhm yeah. Of course. He is an existential threat.
They also care about “authenticity” which is a very vague concept and I have no idea what it means. If it means someone you’d want to have a beer with, or a latte with, or a joint with, then it’s ridiculous. They’re all politicians. None of them just let it all hang out because they are trying to appeal to as wide a swathe of the electorate as they can. It’s not easy. They think about how to do that because to not think about it would be political malpractice.
If it means they don’t appear to be pandering, then fine. But don’t kid yourself. They all pander. Some just have a personality that makes it seem as if they aren’t.
As for policy and experience. Of course. These are always metrics by which people make decisions about who to hire or who to vote for. It’s telling that those are so much less important than “beating Trump” and “authenticity.”
Anyway, if you’re worried about who can beat Trump. According to this poll — all of them can:
Here’s a little nugget:
“It seems impeachment has hurt Trump, as he’s given back ground he gained against the Democrats late last fall,” says Shaw. “But the race remains tight, especially in swing counties.”
The presidential race is a referendum on Trump. And he is not popular. You can’t take anything for granted. They cheat. But while we all have our own ideas about who can beat him (or, more specifically, who is most vulnerable to him) I don’t think we know for sure. The reason we are all so incredibly emotional and overwrought about all this is because the stakes are so high.
I think we’ve been fortunate that the worst hasn’t happened during the first three years. Every day it doesn’t happen is a lucky day. But I don’t know how many more lucky days we have left. We can’t afford to take a chance on another four years. He’s getting worse.
Republished with permission from Hullabaloo