stevenkesslar

Just to be clear, that was sarcasm on my part. John Bolton will never be a hero.

Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’ Of President Toxic's many unexpected and remarkable achievements, this one has to go near the top of the list. Who woulda thunk he'd figure out a way to turn John Bolton, The Hawk Who Wants To Blow Up The World, into a national hero?

CNN Wisconsin Focus Group: Not A Single Person Said They Will Vote For Trump I'm adding this as an addendum to the post directly above. I actually think it is a perfect example of the civil war that is happening in America right now. It is a civil war that is civil. And it is a war being waged with facts, not guns. There's a 5 minute video of Independent voters from Wisconsin embedded in that article that is worth watching. And I get that one could argue this means nothing. It's nine Independent voters. And of these nine, only one voted for Trump in 2016, anyway. The telling thing to me is that of the 9, none will even consider Trump in 2020. All 9 support the impeachment inquiry. 3 already feel they know enough to say that Trump should be removed from office, before he can do more harm. The other 6 want to hear more facts as they are uncovered. Bottom line: whether it's through an election or impeachment, a majority of the American people now want President Toxic to be removed from power. This video of Independents explains why, I think. He is losing the civil war. I am not surprised. It is increasingly becoming a question of how, and when, President Toxic's war against truth will end.

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges BY JOHN SOLOMON — 03/20/19 07:30 PM EDT So I have another way to think about President Toxic's statement about needing to have a civil war. I think he is right. I think we need a civil war. Kind of like we needed to have a civil war over slavery way back when. The difference is that this time, the civil war needs to be fought and won over the truth. And the good news is that we don't have to use guns to fight this war. We can instead use facts. The civil war can, in fact, be civil. That article above now reads completely differently than it did when John Solomon wrote it in March of this year. Solomon at the time worked for The Hill. He was widely unpopular among his professional journalist colleagues, who thought he was pushing propaganda in the guise of "facts" and "news". Solomon, no surprise, has now left The Hill and just got a job at - wait for it - Fox News. He is now spreading his fake news there. This article was part of the Trump/Ghouliani hit campaign to go after Marie Yovanovitch, the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine who just gave testimony to Congress that will go down in history as another "Have you no decency?" moment. She uncovered the fact that she was taken out by Trump and Ghouliani because she was a professional working in the interests of the United States and fighting corruption. Trump wanted her to work on his interests, instead. Solomon was the one who reported the lies made up by former Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko, who alleged that Yovanovitch gave him a list of people not to prosecute. She has now been vindicated. Lutsenko has now lost his job, and admitted that was a lie. If you scroll down, you will see the letter from former Republican U.S. Rep Pete Sessions to Pompeo dated May 9, 2018 stating Yovanovitch should be fired. We now know that President Toxic himself called Yovanovitch "bad news" in his call to President Zelensky, and implied vaguely that something bad was going to happen to her. We also know that Rep. Sessions got campaign contributions from the town clowns associated with Ghouliani who were just indicted and arrested when they were trying to leave the country with one way tickets. We know that the afternoon before they were arrested they were sitting with Ghouliani in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Recall that Rep. Sessions was the Republican Chairman of the House Rules Committee. Really? What rules? Anybody wonder why America fired the House Republicans? We also know that part of the problem with Yovanovitch is she was getting in the way of the Ukraine business dealing of Ghouliani's Soviet Republic-born clowns. Now that they've been arrested, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming, just like they were with Cohen. So much for Ghouliani being a corruption-fighting hero. And it goes without saying. Ghouliani and his clowns will be thrown under the bus by President Toxic. Just like Michael "Who? Why would I believe my long-time lawyer?" Cohen. So we definitely know Trump and Ghouliani did not drain the swamp. We know they dredged it and deepened it. We don't know all the details of how they did it yet. But the stench and taint is now everywhere. Meanwhile, the official "fake news" of the Republican Party is that there is no there. Trump is innocent. He is perfect. He is as wise as all the prophets of The Bible combined. If you buy his most recent tweets, he is perhaps as wise and all knowing as God. You want scandal? Go after Joe Biden and Ukraine. I agree with President Toxic that we need a civil war. We need to fight for the truth. And we need to fight in a civil and factual manner. We knew how this was going to end even before President Toxic was elected. We knew he was going to find a way to pull the trigger, if given the power to do so. And we knew the result would be his own political suicide.

Marie Yovanovitch says Trump ousted her over ‘unfounded and false claims’

There's some interesting and somewhat contradictory data just out from the US census. I'm actually not sure what to make of it. That said, it proves that the US economy is a complex thing. And also that if we want to really shift things, like income inequality, we really should be thinking about "big structural change". Let's start with the most common headline: Census: US inequality grew, including in heartland states That's the factoid that got the most coverage. Median incomes went up slightly less than one percent, from $61,423 per household in 2017 to $61,937 in 2018. The Gini Index went up from 0.482 to 0.485, meaning more income inequality. That means we have the highest level of income inequality in the US in 50 years, as long as this index has been measured. Trumpians responded that the report showed that income is up, unemployment is down, and poverty is down. All of which is true. The data is somewhat confusing. If you go to the actual report, you can download all kinds of tables. And some of them actually seem to slightly contradict each other. Here is one example of that that was reported by the conservative press: What that chart from a conservative publication shows is that the increase in income was actually concentrated more toward the have nots. And that appears to be true. For the second quintile, median income went up from $36,367 in 2017 to $37,293 in 2018. For the Top 20 %, it actually went down slightly, from $234,603 in 2017 to $233,895 in 2018. The most ridiculous argument made by a few conservatives is that this "proves" Trump's tax cuts really did benefit the have nots, not the rich. False. We know for a fact that 75 % of the benefit went to the Top 20 %, and about 5 % of the benefit went to the Bottom 40 %. So what is interesting is that, despite the tax cuts, the rich did not get richer, and the have nots got a little more. The likely explanation is that the Top 20 % derives more income than other Americans from things like investment income and divideneds. During 2017, the stock market boomed, and average income for the rich did, too. Their median income for the Top 5 % went up over five percent from 2016 to 2017, from $394,6681 in 2016 to $416,303 in 2017. In 2018 the stock market was actually down. Median income for the Top 5 % rose to only $416,520. That's $200 bucks more, on average. The tax cuts showered on the rich probably kept their investment income from going down, like the stock market did. There's several points there. First, it doesn't make the Trump economy circa 2018 look all that great. Second, it doesn't suggest that somehow the tax cuts really grew the economy, for anyone. Third, it suggests that the richer you are, the more you make your money off investments, as opposed to work. Unless you call collecting dividend checks work. Speaking of work, it's not clear why incomes went up most for the have nots. One logical theory is that the tight labor market has finally actually resulted in a little bit of trickle down, and wages went up at the bottom of the wage scale. There's probably at least some truth to that. Ironically, that may be bad news for Trump. This kind of trickle down is usually associated with the end of a business cycle. Next stop: recession. Another theory is that whatever gains have come for the have nots came as the result of Democrats, who pushed increases in the minimum wage. That is probably a factor, too. A total of 20 states, pretty much all Democratic "blue" (although they are marked in red in the graphic below), increased minimum wages between 2017 and 2018. And if you do the math, it likely would help people in the second quintile the most, since that group is above the poverty level, but probably tends to have a lot of people who work at the low end of the wage scales. There's some other data that suggest minimum wages may have had an impact. The biggest increase in income by age went to 15 to 24 year olds, which is a relatively small group (6 million people). They make on average about $40,000 a year, and that group's income went up 9 % in one year. Meanwhile, the much larger group of people (24 million) aged 55 to 64 make about $70,000 a year. Their incomes actually went down 2.3% from 2017 to 2018. So the people most likely to be paid at or near minimum wage - the young - made the most gains. Since Trump voters are heavily skewed towards the older, not sure it's a good thing that incomes went down for the age cohorts mostly likely to vote for Trump. Ouch! And those young Californians or Oregonians that got the benefit of a minimum wage hike? Probably not voting for President Toxic in 2020, I'd guess. Regionally, same thing. The region with the biggest income gain was the Northeast, where incomes went up 4.3 %. The region with the lowest income gain was the South, where incomes went up 0.3 percent. The Northeast states are more liberal, and many of the minimum wage increases occurred there. The South is the only region where a number of states have NO state minimum wage law - they just go by the federal level. Only a few states, mainly Florida, increased their minimum wage. That said, I'll also post at the bottom of this thread the changes by state. I was curious, so I actually looked at the 20 states that had a minimum wage increase. There's no obvious and clear correlation. In about half the states that had minimum wage increases (like California, Oregon, Washington, Florida) incomes went up way more than the national average - 2 to 3 %, as opposed to about one percent nationally. In Maine, which increased minimum wage, average incomes went down more than any other state, by about 3 %. On the face of it, California and Florida are a lot bigger than Maine, so when you average it all out it would suggest that nationally the net impact should be positive for people who are one step below the bottom of the ladder. And that is basically what happened. Relatively few people actually make the minimum wage. So while it may have been one factor, it probably was not the biggest. We either are in or near a manufacturing recession thanks to Trump's trade war. That has hit the heartland harder than the coasts. My guess is that when you add it all together, the trade war had more impact than minimum wage hikes. Now let's look at the real big picture. Here is how these numbers have changed for the Top 5 % and the Bottom 20 %, if you adjust for inflation and go back to the start of the Reagan Era: Top 5 %: inflation-adjusted median income rose from $202,165 in 1980 to $416,520 in 2018. That's a 106 % increase in real income, after you adjust for inflation. Bottom 20 %: inflation-adjusted median income rose from $13,093 in 1980 to $13,775 in 2018. That's a 5 % increase in real income. I picked 1980 because I would argue that this is the outcome we should have expected from 40 years of trickle down, with occasional respites under Clinton and Obama. Tax cuts for the rich, no or paltry minimum wage increases for the people at the bottom, and sending factory jobs to China or giving them to robots all had an impact. But it all came back to government policy. Which is why I agree with Elizabeth Warren. We don't need tinkering. We need big structural change. There's people that say the war on poverty failed. That's bullshit. The war on poverty actually slashed the poverty rate dramatically, especially among seniors due to Medicare and Medicaid. We went from about 40 million poor people in 1959 to about 25 million by the end of the 60's, thanks to the War On Poverty. And it also fell under Clinton, to the tune of about 10 million less poor people. The median wage for the Bottom 20 % went from $12,628 in 1993, the year Clinton took office, to $14,852 in 2000 when he left. That's an 18 % increase. In other words, it went up three times higher under Clinton than it has during the entire era of trickle down from 1980 to today. The Bottom 20 % actually make less today,adjusted for inflation, than they did in 2000. For the Top 5 %, median income went from $298,215 in 1993 to $369,069 in 2000, a 24 percent increase. So under Clinton a rising tide did lift all boats. The Top 5 % did slightly better than the Bottom 25 %, but it was comparable. My point is that that happened by design. Clinton pushed things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that did in fact spread out the benefits of economic growth. We need to go back to the idea of big structural change, like The New Deal and The War On Poverty, and also the buildup up factories in a dynamic Main Street economy that was supported by federal investments and policies, like research and building highways. Hmm.Wonder who could do that? Here's the chart of income changes by state, in case anyone is interested: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html?utm_campaign=20190926msacos3ccstors&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

The funny thing is that the President of Ukraine now actually is a former comedian. And somehow this whole thing is turning into a real life comedy, or tragedy. You just can't make this shit up. The Ukraine Plot Yields Its First Two Arrests The same Fox News poll also shows that Trump's allegations against the Bidens make no difference to 64 % of voters. 10 % say the allegations make them LESS likely to vote for Joe Biden. 21 % say they are MORE likely to vote for Biden because of Trump's allegations. Oops. It's just not working out well for President Toxic. Wonder why?

Speaking of Tulsi, can anyone translate this into reality? The DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process I'm honestly not sure I understand what that means. It's something about debates on corporate media and the polls. But I'm not sure I get how that disenfranchises voters in Iowa. What this actually made me think is that if there is a villain, it's the calendar. It's never been clear to me why Iowa should have more say then California, for example. But they do. I think the theory is that the way we do it here vets candidates more thoroughly. But spending a year or two being thoughtful and then electing President Toxic kind of blows that theory to shit. 2016 was more like a root canal. Can't we just get it done in a month? I'm not a huge fan of CNN or MSNBC or Fox. But I've watched debates and town halls put on by all three and I found them informative. The Fox town hall with Sanders was one of the most enjoyable just because it was so counterintuitive. It was very informative, because it got a little bit deeper under Bernie's hood. If there's a problem with the debates so far it's that there's just too many debaters on stage. Ironically, Tulsi will help solve that problem if she boycotts the next debate. This is why I doubt Warren(or Biden) would pick Tulsi. It was easy for me to get around her prior learned and then unlearned homophobia. What I really admire about her is that she is a passionaite one woman army against aggressive militarism and endless war. I would not mind seeing her Secretary of State. That said, my fear with a President Tulsi is it would just be weird all the time. This is just weird.

I've tried to stay ecumenical about Bernie and Elizabeth all year. I've been hoping, as I said, they would tag team on progressive messages. And they have not disappointed. I also figured Tulsi's best shot at VP was with Bernie. That's looking less likely now. I also thought Bernie might pick Warren, in part because he might have needed her to have enough delegates. Now, it would likely be the opposite. Warren could conceivably pick him. Although his heart attack just gave her a good reason not to, assuming she can get enough delegates on her own. If Bernie drops out and endorses, I see zero percent chance he endorses anyone but Warren. They have been friends and allies for a long time. So she is now tied to Biden in the polls and the betting market favorite, and Bernie is gonna endorse Tulsi instead? Dream on. The more interesting question is: would Warren consider Tulsi? My guess is no. Warren already has a lot of people saying she's too far left. Tulsi doesn't solve that problem,. And she adds to it in that she is polling in the low single digits, and even a lot of "liberal" Democrats just despise her. If Warren is nominated, who she picks will tell us a huge amount. I think the conventional wisdom will be she should pick some White male like Tim Kaine for "balance". Hopefully if she goes that route she picks someone like Sherrod Brown. Brown might be a good choice if it didn't mean losing one more Senate seat. I still haven't given up on the idea of Warren/Sanders, but I know that would be like doubling down on horror to Biden Democrats. Plus it's the same Senate problem. Vermont has an R Governor. I actually hope she picks a progressive woman. I like the idea of doubling down and saying it's time for women for a change. But I don't think that would be Tulsi. I'm not sure who it would be.

True enough, on the surface. No Democrat will trash Biden. It didn't work well for either Harris or Castro. Behind the scenes, there are all the telltale signs of panic. Can't we run Michelle? I mean, maybe we're going to need to reboot Hillary 2.0 even? I doubt Biden will be gone by Iowa. He may still win the nomination, although I'd bet money that we'll see a repeat of 2008. Once Obama won Iowa, everything changed. Meaning Biden will likely stay in just long enough to prevent his folks from consolidating around someone else. https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2/ Scroll down and look at people's second choices. What's interesting is that if Harris drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else. If Mayor Pete drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else. The only person who could drop out and benefit Biden is Bernie - barely. Biden would get 31 % of his supporters, and Warren would get 27 %. My gut all year has been that Bernie and Elizabeth were not going to have a food fight with each other. They are too smart, too principled, and most important they have spent way too much time being outsiders. They know how to play David much better than how to play Goliath. So I figured they were going to do what they have been doing: be a great tag team for progressive ideas. For now at least, I think it's better for Bernie to stay in. Based on the trend, the math is working out that either Elizabeth will have enough delegates on her own, or her and Bernie will have enough together. No one has voted yet, so maybe it will all change. But Biden is not gaining support, and Ukrainegate is not helping. As you keep saying, Bernie appeals to a segment of people who think both parties more or less suck. I think it is better for Bernie to stay in, like he did in 2016. Assuming he does not win the nomination, which after his heart attack looks unlikely, he will have to figure out a way to pass the torch to Elizabeth. I think he will figure that out when the time comes.

This is just a continuation of my rant above about why we need to get in the trenches and fight, as opposed to thinking that the hard core Trump base is amenable to reason, compromise, or fact. Donald Trump thinks you're dumb That is a truly remarkable poll finding. It suggests that in the era of Trump, a majority of Republicans do believe that they are not only entitled to their own opinions. They are also entitled to their own facts. In this case, it's particularly weird. Because Trump himself seems to be saying to any global leader, or any TV camera, or just about anybody, that really truly the worst corruption ever to exist is that Biden corruption. It is just horrible. And of course he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. As well as Xi. And of course everybody should investigate Biden, according to Trump. So really now. Is there a reason that it is so hard for Republicans to swallow facts that even their fearless (if dishonest) leader wants them to swallow? And then there is this screed from the right-wing Federalist: Intel IG Admits It Secretly Erased ‘First-Hand Information’ Requirement In August I've actually been spending more time reading right wing articles than Establishment media or left wing articles since this scandal hit. I figure if Democrats have a weak case, or are just making shit up, the right wing people will figure it out and blow it open. So I keep reading things like this hoping to find the weaknesses in the Democrats' arguments. And instead what I get are right wing articles that are at best weak, and at worst plain wrong. This headline definitely caught my attention. It certainly makes it sound like there was some deep state conspiracy to doctor forms. Presumably because the deep state has nothing better to do then - yet again - attack Donald Trump, precisely because he is the only guy who will actually tell you the straight up truth. First, it is worth pointing out that the "Intel IG" in question is a Trump appointee. Just like Bob Mueller is a lifelong Republican and former FBI Director who was appointed by Trump's own DOJ. But none of this really is an obstacle to dismissing any facts that get in the way. So for Trumpians, Mueller has been transformed into a Hillary Clinton/Deep State ass kisser. He also apparently has a Gestapo fetish, since he is reputed to like busting down the doors of good solid loyal Republicans like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. And his fact-filled report has been dismissed with two words: "Russia hoax." So I am of course not surprised that the right wing is doubling down and dismissing a Trump appointed IG who has the nerve to follow where the facts lead. Second, The Federalist article trashing Trump's own IG provides a hyperlink to the IG's press release about the whistleblower complaint form. The Federalist actually quotes extensively from that press release. So, on the one hand, The Federalist correctly reports that the law that governs whistle blowers DOES NOT require first hand information. It also quotes the IG's office in stating that their initial complaint form was developed in a way that "could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees." So what the IG's office is essentially saying is that in evaluating the complaint, we actually followed what the federal law says, not what the confusing complaint form we put together last year could have implied. Third, The Federalist implies in their headline and in the content of the article that changing the form was a nefarious plot hatched "secretly" and "in August" specifically in response to this particular whistle blower's "hit job" on Trump. In fact, the press release spells out that the IG's office started to review the forms in July 2019, before the whistle blower's complaint was filed, after a Director for the new Center for Protected Disclosures was hired. The Federalist actually quotes this part of the press release. It then essentially says, "Never mind." We'll just pretend that instead of having a form that actually complies with the law Congress passed, this was all just some secret deep state plot hatched in August. Fourth, the Federalist ignores this part of the press release, which spells out the IG's interest in complying with the law even more clearly: "The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since [Trump-appointed] Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community [in May 2018], the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistle blower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations." In other words, the whistle blower could have filed the report in May 2018, June 2018, July 2018 .... or any month up to August 2019, and the Trump-appointed IG would not have rejected it based on a lack of first hand knowledge. Because that is what the law actually requires him to do. When you strip away the layers of total bullshit, I would argue this is worse than going to a town hall with a US Rep to bellow "Lies!" and "Fake news!" This is The Federalist essentially arguing that Trump's own IG should have broken the law, and not allowed a whistle blower to file a complaint that was NOT based on first hand knowledge. For those of us that live in the real world, as opposed to The Donald J. Trump Fake News Playhouse, the consequence of Trump's IG breaking the law would have been clear. It would have made the scandal and cover up just a tad bit worse. And it would have given the whistle blower one more reason to go to Schiff's Congressional Committee. That is, in fact, what the law Congress passed actually allows whistle blowers to do. They seem to have actually anticipated the idea that you could have a POTUS like Trump and an AG like Barr who basically believe the only correct way to file a complaint against Trump is to file it in the waste basket. My larger point is that whether it is Trumpians at town halls or The Federalist arguing that Trump's IG was wrong to actually follow the law, this has nothing to do with facts. So on the one hand, it is critically important for people like Rep. Slotkin or Rep. Schiff to follow the facts. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way to win an argument that is factual, truthful, and civil with Trumpians who have no interest in facts, the truth, or civility. Trump himself knows this, of course. Which is why he has always displayed animus toward facts, the truth, and civility. What follows from this is some really good news and some really bad news. Here's the good news: Even among the Republican Party, there is hopefully NOT a fact-free majority. So a substantial minority of Republicans don't believe facts, like that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. (FACT: He did.) And a substantial minority of Republicans also feel that even if Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate the candidate who is currently his biggest political opponent in a national election, this is NOT an "abuse of power". If about half of Republicans are willing to follow the facts, along with most Democrats and Independents, the era of Trump is toast. Now here's the bad news. Even if Trump is toast, either through impeachment or losing the 2020 election or a combination of both, he has now reinforced the fact-free inclinations of millions of his most fervent followers. I'll keep arguing Trump is the symptom, not the cause. The Tea Party popped up in reaction to Obama, long before anybody thought Trump would ever be President. Trump in fact jumped on their bandwagon with his fact-free and racist birther lies, as opposed to the other way around. Since these people were doing their thing before Trump, count on the fact that they'll be doing it after he is gone. And whether he is convicted and removed from office, or he just loses an election (which is actually sort of what he did in 2016, if you go by actual human voters), the Trumpians will resent it. So, for example, you may think that Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist, because she says she is. Or because her policies are clearly based on capitalist free market principles. But don't let yourself get confused with facts, the truth, or civility. If Warren does win in 2020, we will definitely have a Socialist nightmare of a President. Perhaps even a Satanist. Or maybe they'll argue she isn't qualified to be President, because she's Native American, which is not American. Who knows what shit they'll come up with. Thanks, Rep. Slotkin, for modeling what we need to do. Facts, truth, civility, and women who are just going to persist no matter what the asshole men in the room say or do.

Michigan Democrat confronted over support of impeachment inquiry at town hall There's an interesting 4 minute video embedded in that article that is worth watching if you want to understand the nature of Trump's civil war. (I also think it should be thought of as Putin's civil war. More on that below.) I think the video describes the essential nature of what is happening in America. It also embodies what I think we have to do to "win" the civil war. In essence, the way to win the civil war is to speak the truth, and be civil. I think Rep. Slotkin modeled that is this video. She is a former CIA analyst (for some, that means "deep state" analyst, of course) who was one of the moderate women who won in 2018 in a Republican House district that had supported Trump in 2016. She seems to have several crazy ideas. First, that there are things called facts. Second, that you can investigate these things called facts. Third, that investigating facts carefully leads you to a thing called truth. Fourth, that upon learning that truth you can act in a way that makes sense, and is ethical. I know. I know. Who would elect such a crazy person with such radical ideas? The video also models what you do if you are a Trumpian who wants to believe what you want to believe. First, you shout. Second, you shout more. Third, you use simple sentences like, "LIes!" and "Fake news!" These things can't really be debated. Because any time some one presents a fact you just call it a lie, or fake news, and you're done. It's easy. You can practice this as home tonight. Just be VERY loud. It is much better when you are loud, and sound very angry. Now, in fairness, some Trumpian in the video did make a decent argument, by yelling the word "corruption". So if you are a Trumpian, you can argue logically that the guy who brought us Trump U and Trump steaks and only lies when his lips are moving has suddenly developed a hard on for fighting corruption. And as Sen. Romney (a Republican) helpfully pointed out, this boner that Trump has for corruption only gets fully hard when it involves Joe Biden, who just happens to be the leading Democratic contender. You can believe that has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with politics. It is just that Donald Trump is the only one who tells you the straight truth, and everybody else is a deep state liar. Including that Slotkin woman, who is a deep state liar who needs to be dumped. You can believe that. It's a wonderful fantasy. This is the nature of the civil war in America today. The Trump folks are going to shout and follow their leaders and say "Fake News! Lies!" (Repeat 5000 times). There is no point in talking to them, unless you like shouting. Rep. Slotkin of course has to talk to them, and talk nicely. But she's not going to persuade them, because they have absolutely no interest in listening, whatsoever. Or in facts. So Slotkin is doing what needs to be done. Focus on facts. Organize. Win. The fact that she is now the elected leader of that district models exactly what the solution is. Her being the US Rep. there took a hell of a lot of work, and organizing, and focusing on facts. And now of course they are coming after her with "Fake news!" and "Lies!" I find this video encouraging. Because the true Trumpians are like rats on a sinking ship. Of course they don't want to believe that it is a fact that the ship is sinking. They will just call it fake news and lies. I said you could call this Putin's civil war because my theory (which is not a fact) is that Putin and his Internet Research Agency worked very hard to create this tone in America in 2016. If you are a Trumpian, you think Bob Mueller is a Democrat who spends his time licking Hillary Clinton's feet and concocting an elaborate "Russia hoax". In fact, he is a lifelong Republican who documented in hundreds of pages of detail how Putin and his IRA interfered and created a huge disinformation campaign during the 2016 election. It never struck me as likely that someone like Putin would leave smoking guns behind. If it's Putin and it involves a gun, it normally means somebody is going to blow your brains out if you are a journalist or political opponent. And no one will ever figure out who did it. Putin does not leave smoking guns behind. That said, there is no question that Mueller uncovered much of the details of what Putin's team did in 2016. Why did Putin do it? Was it to benefit Trump? I thought Pelosi was correct to avoid impeachment after the Mueller report came out, because Mueller was not able to factually answer those questions - at least beyond a reasonable doubt. I find it completely plausible that Putin wanted to pay back Hillary Clinton for not being nice to Putin when she was Secretary of State. I also find it plausible that Putin cared less about who won and cared more about making democracy look like a useless and even harmful food fight. I also find it plausible that Trump, who has had a lifelong aversion to facts and the truth, was simply a coincidence of history. Again, everything in this paragraph is a theory. I know the difference between theories and facts. But I do think it makes sense to keep in mind that Putin may not have started this civil war, but he did do his level best to throw lots of gasoline on to the fire. Regardless, the approach to ending the civil war is the same. It is going to be trench warfare, probably for years to come. And Slotkin is modeling exactly how you fight and win.

And under the same category - No, God damn it! The truth is not the truth! - you gotta love this: Top US diplomat threatened to quit over Ukraine dealings Indeed. We sure wouldn't want a paper trail, would we? It might make what is happening clear. So just remember guys. A quid pro quo is not a quid pro quo. Election interference is not election interference. Asking Zelensky to go after Biden is not corruption. It is simply proving how much The President hates corruption. And most important: the truth is not the truth. Once you grasp these facts, it just makes everything so much easier. And that also means you can stop reading Politico. It is now absolutely clear they are just part of the deep state. The U.S. diplomat who questioned Trump's Ukraine scheme

This may not be civil war, but it is a remarkable admission on the part of Kurt Volker, who served as special envoy to Ukraine for a few years until he just quit. To put it in context, I got to the actual testimony by way of a right wing piece in The Federalist. The author of that piece claimed Volker's testimony "directly contradicts Democrats' impeachment narrative." The author even conveniently provided a hyperlink to Volker's testimony. So I figured this is worth reading. Here are some of the things Volker' statement said: Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight Amb. Kurt Volker Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations The article in The Federalist used this testimony to argue that this whole business really was not about Biden or election interference, really. It was about corruption. And as far as Volker's involvement goes, I have no problem believing that is true. If you read the whole testimony, Volker and almost all the professionals in the US foreign policy bureaucracy are on Zelensky's side. They are pushing hard for Trump to support Zelensky, and do not understand why Trump is not doing so. That said, Volker clearly had the idea that Trump's coldness was rooted in the idea that somehow Ukrainians tried to "take me down". While Volker comes off as a straight arrow, the bulk of the testimony suggests that the headlines that say Ghouliani was running a "shadow shakedown" for Trump sound pretty much correct, as the details emerge. It's interesting that Volker has to keep pointing out that Ghouliani is not actually speaking for the US Government. He is speaking for Trump. And it is also clear that Ghouliani's message is clear: he wants Ukraine to go after Biden, Burisma, and 2016. It's quite plausible to assume Ghouliani did not stress this in his private conversations and texts to Voilker, since he knew him and Volker were working on very different and contradictory objectives. The most damning line in the testimony to me is that Volker said "it is essential" that Ukraine NOT do exactly what Trump personally asked Ukraine's President to do: interfere in the US 2020 election. The real diplomats - Volker and Yermak - kept editing words like "Burisma" and "2016" out. Trump of course put those words and other conservative conspiracy theories like "Crowdstrike" right back in. And then he topped it off with the word that is the cherry on top of the icing of the cake: "Biden". Volker also clearly doesn't agree with the President and Ghouliani's take on Biden. Trump is telling anyone in the world who will listen that Biden is corrupt as hell. He seems to think that the primary foreign policy goal of Ukraine, China, Australia, and perhaps every other country in the world should be to prove that Biden is corrupt as hell. Volker certainly undercut that narrative. It's not clear from the quote above, but the other irony is that Volker was actually in Ukraine, meeting with Zelensky and his staff over a period of days, when the phone call between Trump and Zelensky occurred. As Volker says, he was not involved in that call. That makes two things clear. First, Trump and Ghouliani were basically working at cross purposes to their own State Dept. and most of Congress, including key Republican Congressional leaders. It doesn't surprise me that the Ukrainians figured out pretty quickly that Ghouliani probably had way more influence on Trump than Volker did. Second, it underscores that the alleged "shakedown" was not just about one phone call on one day. It involved a whole series of meetings and conversations. Ghouliani at the center of it, often working at cross purposes to a number of US diplomats. And as the details emerge, it is incredibly clear that Zelensky and his team were getting the message that Ghouliani and Trump expected them to investigate "corruption". And not just any corruption. Specifically, the words they kept using were "Biden", "Burisma", and "2016". The fact that a right-wing screed like The Federalist can take this testimony and argue that it "directly contradicts" the Democrats' impeachment narrative shows just how far toward civil war Trump has brought America. I actually think the perfect bumper sticker for the Trump era was spoken by Ghouliani himself back in 2018: Giuliani: ‘Truth isn’t truth’ So in classic Trump/Ghouliani style, we have a collection of convoluted sentences and conspiracy theories. And the basic idea seems to be that election interference is not election interference. And if the grown ups in the room disagreed with Trump about Biden, Burisma, 2016, and his approach to Ukraine, that obviously proves that Trump is right, and everybody who disagrees is part of the "deep state" or something. After all, truth isn't truth. Just take it from Rudy. It will be interesting to see what fired Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch says. Volker reinforced what everyone else is saying: she was a consummate professional. So I expect we will get more interesting details about how the interests of the US and its diplomatic corp were headed in one direction, and Trump and Ghouliani and their lawyers and henchmen were headed in exactly the opposite direction.

A few interesting tidbits as Warren surges: It is encouraging to think we're not even into 2020, and Warren seemingly has a plan to run in a way that pulls the Senate, House, and local Democrats along. From the memo referenced above: Of course, it's a no brainer that both Warren and Biden want to be perceived as a dream candidate to put at the top of the ticket. But is she? Way too early to tell, of course. But there's a few interesting polls that hint at why maybe she could be. http://emersonpolling.com/2019/10/03/statistical-dead-heat-with-biden-sanders-and-warren-voters-support-impeachment/ In Ohio, any of the three leading Democrats would beat Trump in that new poll: both Biden and Sanders 53/47, and Warren 52/48. Ohio is a state I already think of as a lost cause for Democrats. And it has no Senate race in 2020. So what the poll suggests is no matter which of the three Democrats nominate, Trump may have to play defense in Ohio to win a must-win state for him. Meanwhile, check out this poll from Arizona: https://www.changeresearch.com/crooked-change-arizona-poll If this poll is right, Warren is now way out front in the Democratic primary there. She has 35 % of the vote, compared to 19 % for Bernie and only 15 % for Biden. This poll shows the Presidential election is a statistical toss up. The only other poll done since Warren's surge started (released on Sept. 18) also showed both her and Biden in a statistical tie in horse race match ups with Trump. Arizona, of course, also has one of the key Senate races that will determine whether Mitch McConnell gets to keep his job as Majority Leader. The poll doesn't break down who is supporting Warren. But the pattern that seems to be emerging is that she holds her own in the Rust belt states Trump must win, and where "working class" Joe and populist Bernie supposedly have an advantage over her. That may have been true six months ago. But any advantage the men had is quickly disappearing. Meanwhile, Warren may have a growing advantage among educated women who are among the key swing voters that turned the House in 2018 and may turn the Senate in 2020. It's too early to tell. But the handwriting that is starting to appear on the wall is she may play well in those relatively affluent suburban districts in states like Arizona, as well as North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. It's definitely something to watch out for.

Presto change-o! Lichtman is getting what he has been publicly asking for all year: impeachment. And now he is weighing on on why this makes sense for Democrats, politically Why impeachment favors Democrats in the election BY ALLAN LICHTMAN,

Elizabeth Warren's rising popularity has been limited to Democrats These trend lines are pretty clear. What do other people think. Can Warren seal the deal? In the Democratic primary, the one huge problem she still faces is the Black vote. There's a brand new poll out on South Carolina. Biden is leading - no surprise. And Warren's Black support is still in the single digits. That said, if she hits home runs in the three states before South Carolina, history suggests it's likely to turn into a grand slam. (In South Carolina, Warren and Biden are now tied among Whites. So the Black vote pretty much is the last big domino that may or may not fall for her.) History suggests that these horse race polls are more or less useless a year out in predicting who is actually going to win. That said, the favorabilility ratings turn out to be much more reliable - moreso when they show a clear trend. I watched in horror for two years as Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings went from 10+ percent net positive before emailgate to 10+ percent net negative in almost every poll by Fall 2016. So the relevant trend to me is that Warren's rating is good and getting slowly better, and Biden's rating is good and getting slowly worse. I think what matters most is that it shows that when Warren tries to connect with voters, it seems like she is succeeding. When Biden tries, it doesn't work as well. And this is before what will likely be months of "Is Biden Corrupt Or Not?" constant news. For now, it's a battle between Warren's endless selfie lines and Biden's alleged sleaze. Guess who is likely to win? The thing I've been worried about all year is that Warren's favorable ratings are NOT that great outside the Democratic bubble. This article reinforces that. As it states, there is no reason to think any Democrat is going to have much appeal to Republicans or right-leaning Independents. And compared to Warren (66 % unfavorable), Biden has gone from being slightly less unpopular (63 %) to slightly more unpopular (70 %) among this group. The one real advantage Biden still has is that his favorable rating among this group (22 %) is double that of Warren's (11 %). Here's another thing about Warren that seems worrisome on the face of it: https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings-q2-19-2/ If you click on the "most unpopular" tab, you will learn that Warren is the 5th least popular Senator in the US right now. (Bernie is the 2nd most popular, down slightly from his normal spot in most of these quarterly polls as the most popular.) She is 49 % favorable, 40 % unfavorable among Massachusetts voters in this poll. That sort of matches with her 2018 Senate race, which she won 60/40. So to me the relevant question is: is it any surprise that 40 % of voters in Massachusetts don't like her? And is there really any particularly good reason for me to care? What matters to me more is that she doesn't go down like Hillary: win the popular vote by millions of votes, and lose the electoral college by tens of thousands of votes. Here's a fun fact that I think may be barely relevant to this discussion. Can you guess what the 10 most popular Governors in the US all have in common right now? https://morningconsult.com/governor-rankings-q2-19/ Answer: they are all Republicans. My hunch is that in a deeply polarized America, it is not really all that hard to be a popular Republican Governor in a red state like Wyoming (# 5) or Arkansas (# 7). I give Abbot and DeSantis credit for managing to come in at the bottom of the Top 10 from big "purplish" states like Florida and Texas. But the truly interesting thing about that list is that the top four most popular Governors are all Republicans from pretty much solidly blue New England: Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Biden's allies have been making a big deal of the fact that even if Warren got 60 % of the vote in Massachusetts in 2018, she substantially underperformed Charlie Baker, the Republican Governor. (He won 67/33). That said, here's another fun fact: the polls also show that Republican Governors Baker and Scott, and perhaps Hogan, are actually more popular among Democrats in their state than Republicans. So one way to look at this is that Democratic Senator Warren is not quite as popular with Republicans in Massachusetts as Republican Governor Baker is with Democrats in Massachusetts. Can someone explain to me why I am not surprised? Okay, I'll answer my own question. I'm not surprised because Baker and Scott are pragmatic moderates, as well as the first two Republican Governors to come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry. Name one Republican Senator that is saying what they are. 2 From Northeast Become 1st Republican Governors to Support Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump There's two reasons I said these polls about Republican Governors may be barely relevant to Warren's prospects. On the impeachment thread, I posted this really great colloquy between Morning Joe and historian Jon Meacham a few morning ago. They were discussing a new poll that shows the public split on impeachment 43/43. Meacham said that in this deeply polarized national environment, expecting some poll to show the public in favor of impeachment 60/40 is just unrealistic. He said something like, "50/50 is probably the new 60/40." I think that applies to Warren's candidacy, as well. In a state like Massachusetts where a moderate Governor is pushing pragmatic solutions and compromise, I can see 60/40 or better still being an option. And Warren, running for Senate, did in fact win 60/40 last year. But at the national level, running against Trump, I think 50/50 or so is closer to what's real. The idea that we want a Bubba Bill Clinton-type candidate that's going to triangulate and schmooze from the middle doesn't make any sense to me right now. In fact, part of what I actually liked about Hillary in 2016 (and why I voted for her over Sanders in the primary) is that she was sort of running as Ms. Bubba. It didn't work. Trump focused on exciting his base, and he won. Warren is the most exciting candidate out there right now. That matters a lot to me. The second reason I think those polls on Republican Governors may be barely relevant is that Warren herself actually used to be a Republican until a few decades ago. And while she is being shrewdly silent about that (so far), my guess is that she will do what all Democrats do, if nominated: she will moderate. And one way she can do that is to talk more about her roots in Oklahoma as a Main Street capitalist. Which is exactly what Governors like Baker and Scott are. Which help explains why they are so popular in their states. Warren is hardly running on a centrist agenda. But she is hardly a socialist. The argument that is being made by smart talking heads right now (like anybody on Morning Joe) is that some of her positions make her unelectable. Okay. But if that is true, it's only showing up in the minds of Morning Joe talking heads, as opposed to in the actual polls. I'm not even sure if those final sentences from the CNN article above are still true. There's only three national horse race polls completed since Sept. 16, when Ukrainegate first started to hit. Biden barely leads Trump in one (+ 1 - Emerson) and is losing to Trump in another ( - 4 - Rasmussen). Warren is barely beating Trump in one: ( + 2 - Emerson). Whatever perceived electability advantage Biden once had has been gradually fading. Ukrainegate is probably likely to blow it off the map. But like I said, the horse race polls in particular mean next to squat at this point. My biggest reason for thinking Warren can close the deal boils down to two words: political judgment. Yeah, she fucked up on Pocahontas. But even that is now turning into an example of how she stumbles, and then she persists. Mostly my perception of her is that she has been remarkably good all through her career at figuring out what works, and what doesn't. She goes with what works, and bags what doesn't - quickly. Which is why she tends to win, as well as get shit done. She has a habit of punching above her weight (see Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fight.) With Trump I'm tempted to say the opposite. Yeah, lightning struck in 2016, and some of that was his feral political judgment. But the guy has mostly been good at keeping his favorability rating down at about 40 % or so. And that will matter come Election Day 2020, just like it mattered on Election Day 2018. What happened in the last week is no surprise. Trump is the kind of corrupt guy whose political judgment always suggested he was more likely than not to self-impeach. The biggest thing that changed is that all the guys that maintained the guardrails like Kelly and McMaster and McGahn are now gone. There's other huge things, of course, like whether we are headed into a recession, and what facts the impeachment inquiry actually turn up. But I'm gradually persuading myself that Warren does have a plan to win, and she will persist. I think she is poised to be able to close the deal.

Excellent article that I think nails it: Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, but prominent Americans also shouldn’t be leveraging their names for payoffs from shady clients abroad. I'm about 1000 % certain that this is just going to reinforce what happened under the surface in the 2018 election, and also where the 2020 election was headed anyway. There will be a huge focus on the broader culture of corruption, and the need to clean it up. (If you believe in the magic of Trump and his tweets, this was of course already settled in 2016, when he was elected to drain the swamp. Let's not go there.) I'll put up a second article, both to illustrate why this will hurt Biden, and why it won't really deflect from Trump. Now that Sarah Sanders Huckabee is gone, I guess Fox News and his Twitter feed are about all Trump has to rely on. (Oh, and The Divine Miss Graham, of course.) Good luck with that, Donald. I don't think this will get you very far. The fact that the polls on impeachment have shifted so quickly pretty much tells me that what I thought was true is true: Americans are not stupid, and they know corruption and bullshit when they see it. Busting Biden myths on Ukraine – Conduct of Joe and Hunter raises troubling questions By Peter Schweizer, Jacob McLeod | Fox News I think that is the core of Joe Biden's problems. Not a whole lot of people are going to believe that. As The Atlantic article point to, I think the image that most resonates for me about Biden's problems has nothing to do with Ukraine. It's the image of Joe and Hunter Biden walking off Air Force Two together in China, shortly before Hunter scored a $1.5 billion equity deal with the Chinese. There's not a whole lot of artistic ways to put lipstick on that pig. There wasn't a wall between them. There wasn't even an airplane between them. The illogic of that argument collapses on itself really quickly. Anyone with a sense of fairness would note that Hunter was asked to join that board after Joe was already in charge of dealing with Ukraine. So unless there is a tape recording of some conversation where Joe is telling Hunter to join the board and clean up on fees and contracts, the conflict of interest seems to be Hunter's - not Joe's. There's also the minor problem of explaining why Hunter has a legal problem, simply because he joined the board of a company whose boss had had legal problems for years. The really illogical part of this that reflects very badly on Trump is that his own words make absolutely no sense. He misspoke, based on his own transcript, and said that Biden tried to get rid of a prosecution. When he actually should have said Biden did get rid of a prosecutor. You can go full blown conspiracy theory and argue that Biden's intent was to stop a prosecution. But there's no evidence of that. In fact, what makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever is that Biden's critics are arguing exactly the opposite. They are pointing out that after Biden fired the prosecutor, the investigation and prosecution of Burisma did in fact continue. So Fox Fake News wants to have it both ways. Why am I not surprised? As I stated elsewhere, the final outcome is that Burisma did get nailed for past tax evasion - which had nothing to do with the Bidens - and Burisma coughed up several million in back taxes. At some point I expect Hunter Biden or somebody will come forward with a credible argument that Hunter's role on the board was to clean the company's policies and governance up. The argument that Biden got Shokin fired to protect Burisma and his son is incredibly weak. But based on the facts Fox itself is reporting, to make the argument you really have to argue that the real problem with Joe Biden is that he's incompetent. If his goal was to shut down the case against Burisma, it obviously didn't work. The part of this I love is that it really casts a spotlight on the endemic corruption of revolving doors between corporations and governments, former government officials getting rich by joining corporate boards, and the families of government officials getting rich by doing the same. The Trump family and Team Trump's Cabinet of Billionaires is hardly in a position to sit in moral judgment on that one. One interesting tell is that Elizabeth Warren herself was described as "flustered" when she was asked whether a President Warren would allow the child of her Vice President to sit on the board of a foreign company. You can interpret that any number of ways, based on your feelings about Warren. To me what it says is that even the candidate who has been most outspoken about corruption didn't really have a clear answer for where you draw the line. This is going to be really, really good.

I'm a little confused by your statement because one of the three articles I hyperlinked was exactly the same one you did - from John Solomon at The Hill. I assume you mean there was a conflict between Hill's article and the first one I hyperlinked, the timeline from Media Matters. My sense is that Media Matters is accurate and they stuck to the facts, the facts, and only the facts. As I said above, Hill certainly has facts to hang his insinuations on. And Biden just looks sleazy. But Solomon really has no facts that suggest either Biden did anything illegal. He sounds more like Glenn Beck: "I'm just asking questions!" One thing I've been thinking about is this: if there is an error in judgment by Biden, which Biden is it? Joe Biden became the point man for Ukraine shortly after Putin's invasion. By every credible account I have read, Joe Biden was the designated hatchet man for broadly felt concerns about Shokin that were shared by the US, the UK, the IMF, and maybe most importantly, lots of local reformers in Ukraine. The problem really started when Hunter Biden took a position on Burisma's board. That definitely created a conflict of interest. It's hard not to believe it was an overtly political move, and the only reason he was paid the big bucks is he happened to be the Veep's son. He is also a recovering drug addict, and someone who just strikes me as sleazy. All that said, at least if you only look at Ukraine, this is more like the father paying for the sins of the son than the son paying for the sins of the father. Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, other than to be a sleazebag. I don't know this disqualifies Joe Biden based on any reasonable standard or any known fact. But it certainly doesn't look good. I agree with your bottom line regarding a President Warren. Her bumper sticker is "corruption is bad". Both Trump and the Bidens seem to be offering examples of different forms of corruption. The Biden sort - "pay to play" - is legal and broadly practiced. The Trump sort goes further, and is certain to end up being an impeachable offense. That's going to be very interesting to watch. I think the verdict is in already that Trump clearly solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election. Even Republicans are pretty much all saying Trump bringing up the Bidens was just wrong. their argument is it just isn't something that merits impeachment. How the "quid pro quo" thing plays out with public opinion depends on a whole bunch of facts that have yet to be uncovered. We don't know what was happening in the months before that call. But some things we do know suggest a concerted effort to make the alleged quid pro quo - you get money to take out Biden - really obvious. Like Rudy Colludy popping up all over the place and making it clear as day that Trump wanted dirt on Biden. Lindsey Graham is the guy whose role in the Senate now seems to be to try to add as much political logic as possible to Trump's worst rants. So he's the one advancing the most cogent argument about how this was really all good policy. Trump just wanted our allies to pitch in, and he wanted to make sure the new guy was not corrupt. That's the best argument anyone can make. The White House has picked it up, so now what they are saying is that the DOD and NSC were simply conducting a "policy process" before releasing the funds. Amid Impeachment Talk, WH Says Aid Delay Was Review-Based In that regard, the very last paragraph of the whistle blowers complaint may be one of the most damning, if it holds up as the facts come out: So it's clear, that quote was from the very last paragraph of the whistle blower's complaint. Part of why I think this is gaining momentum is that the whistle blower obviously is a professional who knows a lot about policies and processes and laws that would be applicable. So if there was a "policy review" occurring within the NSC, you'd think the staff of the NSC who work on these matters would know about it, right? With the exception of Lindsey Graham, most Republican Senators - including McConnell - have said they don't have a clue why the money was held up. My sense is that at least hints that most Republicans are not going to throw themselves under the bus for Trump. It's a minor point, but Trump's congratulatory tone on the phone call also doesn't quite fit with the idea that he had grave concerns about the new President being corrupt. Zelenskyy was quite obviously sucking up to Trump in almost every sentence he spoke. And Trump was bending over backward to tell Zelenskyy what a great guy he was, and what a wonderful and promising victory he had won. Trump didn't really bring up any generic concern about Ukrainian corruption. Like he didn't say, I need you to prove to me that you can run a country without massive corruption. In fact, the more I learn, the more it sounds like Trump implicitly was siding with corruption. He talked about how unfair it was that Biden got Shokin fired, even though by almost every account Shokin was viewed as an ineffective and corrupt General Prosecutor. Then Trump trashed his own Ambassador, a career diplomat who he had just sidelined. It's going to be very interesting to learn what she has to say about Ghouliani's involvement. To the degree that Trump articulated clearly what hoops Zelenskyy had to jump through, it was all about the Clinton/Biden/DNC conspiracy theories: you make Biden and Clinton and Mueller and the Democrats look bad, and you'll make me happy. That was the clear subtext to me. Now that I've read the report of the US Inspector General who had to review the whistle blower's complaint, Trump seems to have one other huge problem: To make sure it's clear, that line is from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's report explaining why he thinks the whistle blower's allegations are credible and urgent. And the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, was appointed by Trump and appears to be a squeaky clean good government type who worked for DOJ for 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Atkinson_(Inspector_General) Atkinson received the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service for his work taking down Black Democratic U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, the corrupt Louisiana legislator who got caught with a bunch of money wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer. It's hard to argue a good cop type appointed by Trump himself had an axe to grind against Trump. It's not clear yet what "other information" means in that quote above. But if you take what the whistle blower says and what the IG agrees with, it's hard not to believe that a third of fourth of fifth person isn't going to come forward to confirm that Trump did in fact solicit a foreign leader to help his 2020 reelection campaign. Again, we agree. I think who Trump is most likely to have ended up helping is President Elizabeth Warren.

True. But then you have to factor in that DJT is a much kindler and gentler soul than WJC ever was. In the end, Trump will just appeal to our soft spot for celebrities, and we will all no doubt kiss and make up.

I'm putting this here because I guess you could call it comedy. Or maybe tragedy, if you prefer. There's a Politico article today in which five journalists are asked what they think of impeachment, and whether they are surprised. So one of them says this: So if you hit the hyperlink, here it is, from way back in April 2016. Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? My point I guess is that you can make a very good argument that with Trump, it was always going to be a matter of when and how, not whether. Lots of people figured he was eventually going to "self-impeach". Morning Joe commented yesterday that the unique thing with the Clintons is that unlike most politicians, they always took it right up to the line. Whereas Trump, he said, always takes it right up to the line - and then just barrels right through without thinking. All that said, Samuelsohn is not quite a genius. He got the political dynamics about the House and Senate ass backward. It's an interesting comment in and of itself on how much Trump has changed the Republican Party. In 2016, the writer speculated that when this happened, Nancy would be the Minority Leader. So the real pressure would come from Republican Senators who despised Trump. Like, which Republican Senators? Oh, you know. Guys like Lindsey Graham. Nice try. Close, maybe. But not quite.

A Difficult Time to Be a Republican

Trigger warning: this one is gonna be a doozy. You might want to take an aspirin and have a martini first. First, let's start with Donald Trump's version of reality: Now here's reality. And this article, if you want to understand the truth, makes me look terse by comparison. Don't blame me. Facts can be complicated things, I guess. Timeline: How Trump allies and propagandists teamed up to try to smear Biden over Ukraine There is one snippet I will pull out of that timeline, regarding why I think this will ultimately be devastating for Trump. If true, Rudy Ghouliani met then-General Prosecutor Lutsenko in Kiev early this year, and during the meeting Rudy Colludy wanted to discuss whether then-US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not loyal to President Trump". In March of 2019, Lutsenko alleged - in an interview with Trump/Hannity-friendly Hill reporter John Solomon - that Yovanovitch handed him a list of people NOT to prosecute. The State Department immediately called this a complete fabrication. Lutsenko later walked it back and admitted the claim was, in fact, not true. Lutsenko, who was let go by the new President last month, is also now saying that Hunter Biden broke no laws. One lesson we can take from this is that the only time you can't believe a Ukrainian General Prosecutor is when his lips are moving. Both General Prosecutor Lutsenko and his predecessor Shokin (the one Joe Biden bragged about getting fired) seem to make wild claims, depending on who is in power, and which way the wind is blowing. No wonder the Ukrainian people just hired a professional actor and ironic comedian as their leader. Another lesson is that it fits into the broader narrative that Trump views the entire US government as an extension of the Trump Organization. We already know that both Ghouliani and Attorney General Barr come out of this looking like Trump's personal legal lap dogs. The key metric appears to be whether anyone who works for the US Government, like a career diplomat and US Ambassador to Ukraine, is "loyal to President Trump." Ambassador Yovanovitch was fired this Summer, my guess because she was not the type that played ball with Rudy Colludy. She is one of a number of key people that are going to be deposed by the House Intelligence Committee in the next few weeks. I suspect the truth will come out, sooner rather than later. That said, I can't imagine the truth is going to be very good news for Joe Biden and his candidacy. Let's get the reasons this will not legally hurt either Biden out of the way first. One, there is nothing illegal about serving on any company's board, anywhere in the world. If it were illegal, America's jails would be overcrowded with millionaires. Two, no specific allegations have ever been made about anything illegal Hunter Biden did on any board he has served on. The fact that he joined the Burisma board years after the lawsuits and investigations started suggests that while the company and its owner may have had legal problems, Hunter Biden was brought on to help fix them - not to add to them. Third, most of the credible evidence suggests that the investigation against Burisma was "dormant" during the period when Joe Biden and lots of Western officials were trying to get then-General Prosecutor Shokin fired. After years of investigations and legal proceedings against Burisma's President, a Ukrainian oligarch, most of the cases were dropped. The one substantive outcome occurred in 2016 when Burisma did pay several million in back taxes in a tax evasion case. Again, no one has ever alleged Hunter Biden did anything illegal. That said, there's a whole shitload of reasons to think this will hurt Joe Biden politically. Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story John Solomon, as I said earlier, is a right wing gadfly that Trump celebrates with tweets, and Sean Hannity uses regularly as a source for frothing about Clinton/Biden/Obama/Deep State/Mueller conspiracy theories. I won't post them, but several recent articles talk about how other reporters at The Hill have complained about Solomon's biased journalism. As a result, his byline was switched from that of a reporter, to that of an "opinion contributor". Solomon will be leaving The Hill soon, he claims simply because he decided to set out on his own. (I suspect a Fox News contract may lie in his future.) That said, Solomon has enough facts that he can hang a story on it, as the above "opinion" piece written by him proves. Whether it was "dormant" or not, there is a credible argument that something was in fact going on at Burisma at the time that Joe Biden insisted that General Prosecutor Shokin be fired. This is a February 2017 article that Solomon hyperlinked in the article above, in which a US attorney that defended Burisma is interviewed, explaining how all the legal matters were closed in a "legally sound manner": John Buretta: For us it was important to close all cases against Burisma and Nikolay Zlochevskyi in a legally sound manner Okay. But even if you accept that, the fact that he said this in February 2017 suggests that legal matters against Burisma were somewhere on the radar in 2016, when Biden got Shokin fired. As Solomon documents, meetings about these legal matters were held in 2016 with American lawyers and lobbyists with past or current ties to the Clintons or Bidens. Again, these legal matters may have had nothing directly to do with any actions of Hunter Biden. But Trump and Ghouliani can, and of course will, argue that firing Shokin was actually the centerpiece of a wicked plot that prevented the good guys from draining the Burisma swamp. Here's Exhibit A in that argument, which Solomon hyperlinks in the article above. https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement That is a deposition of former General Prosecutor Shokin - the guy Joe Biden got fired. Joe Biden's name comes up repeatedly, and extremely negatively. Here's the part that Solomon references in the article above: Solomon himself is smart enough to note that you can dismiss all this as sour grapes on the part of a fired corrupt government bureaucrat. But guess what? That's not what Trump and Ghouliani are trying to do, as the new ad I posted above that Trump is tweeting out proves. It is only going to get worse from here. The deposition above is part of an ongoing case in Austria against Dymtro Firtash, another Ukrainian oligarch. (Again, try reading this with a martini. It may help). Firtash was arrested in Austria in March 2014, and since then the US has been trying to extradite him in regards to ................ wait for it ......................... charges that he had secured a titanium extraction permit in India through $18.5 million in bribes. Now here's the real kicker: Extradition of Firtash was cleared by the Austrian Supreme Court in June 2019[79] and by Austrian Minister of Justice Clemens Jabloner in July 2019.[80] In July 2019, it was reported that Robert Mueller's chief deputy, Andrew Weissmann, reached out to Firtash's US lawyers in June 2017 offering to “resolve the Firtash case” in exchange for information about Donald Trump and the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Firtash's legal team rejected the offer on the grounds that Firtash had "no credible information or evidence on the topics" outlined.[81][82] Extradition of Firtash has been suspended as a result of appeal by his defense team.[83] So now we can link Joe and Hunter Biden back to Donald Trump's Theology Of Original Sin: the Mueller report. You have a fired and discredited Ukrainian General Prosecutor (Shokin) defending a Ukrainian oligarch and attacking Joe Biden. Claim 1 is that Biden got Shokin fired because Shokin was planning to investigate a company run by a bad Ukrainian oligarch, who paid Biden's son handsomely to serve on their board. Claim 2 is Biden was also at the center of a campaign to persecute a good Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Firtash. As Shokin states in his deposition: "In my opinion, the initiator of the prevention of DF's [Dymtro Firtash's] return to Ukraine was the US Vice President Joe Biden .... The events relating to DF and Biden in 2015 reveal the extent of the US administration's interference with Ukrainan domestic affairs and the eagerness to exercise control with the aim of advancing US interests." Needless to say, it will be quite easy for Sean Hannity to connect all the dots and argue that when the Obama/Clinton/Biden/Deep State/Mueller plot to keep Trump from power failed, the focus of persecution against Good Oligarch Firtash shifted. Mueller's henchman Weissmann offered to let him off the hook, in exchange for ratting out Donald Trump as part of Mueller's Russiagate hoax. In order to believe this makes any sense whatsoever, you of course have to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe and Hunter Biden, Bob Mueller, and Andrew Weissmann are all rolling around in bed together. (Even if you are drinking a martini, I beg you NOT to try to imagine what that would actually look like in real life.) Needless to say, Hannity and Trump are certain to go there. The axiom in politics is, "When you're explaining, you're losing." Can someone please tell me how Joe "the Explainer" Biden is actually going to explain this one? For Trump, the huge problem is that the coverup may be worse than the crime. For Biden, the problem may be that the appearance of impropriety is worse than impropriety itself.

One final segment from Morning Joe: https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/new-polling-shows-where-the-country-stands-on-impeachment-70064709736 I think the colloquy between Scarborough and Meacham nailed the internal dynamics of this for Republican Senators, who will ultimately have to decide to convict. Playing off Joe, I have a very hard time seeing Trump's approval rating AMONG REPUBLICANS in states like Kentucky, or North Carolina, or Iowa, or Arizona dropping to 60 percent or less. That's the level Joe said they'd have to go for Republicans to be able to vote to convict Trump without committing political suicide. Arguably, Trump's favorable rating might actually go up AMONG REPUBLICANS as they circle the wagons. As Meacham keeps saying, these are very partisan times. The polling trend is already very clear that Democrats and Independents are running the other way. Fast. So think that one through. It will be almost impossible for 20 + Republican Senators to break with the President. And as Joe say, even if you magically get that, we don't know how tied into this mess Pence is, when the facts come out. All of this is to say Republican Senators are being quiet for a reason. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Part of what happened in 2008 is that Obama whipped Democrats into a fever pitch. The idea that Joe Biden would do that in 2020 was always sort of delusional to me. Uncovering this shit bomb is not really gonna help Biden and his son. Can Warren or Sanders or Mayor Pete rally the troops? Too early to tell. What is more predictable to me is that Republicans in 2020 may look a lot like Republicans in 2008. Demoralized. The other part of the problem in 2008 for Republicans is that a lot of Republicans just stayed home. As this plays out, it's very easy to me to see that the national election in 2020 could look a little bit like the Alabama special election did. Republicans are not going to vote for a Democrat, even if it's a moderate like Doug Jones (or Joe Biden). They may do what allowed Doug Jones to win: just stay home.