Yes, we do. And it ain't Bernie.

Joe Biden seems like a least-common-denominator, "nobody's first choice, and everybody's second choice" kind of nomination that will fire up absolutely nobody.

Well my twitter feed was blowing up all of a sudden, and had to go check. NBC and CNN reporting some version of the Mueller investigation/report could be ending next week. Followed by tweets from journalist/lawyers/politicians that its not the end/just the beginning of the end/new AG Barr forcing Mueller to issue a report/etc. I've closed my twitter feed for the day :)

The Predictit speculators like Harris, Sanders, Biden, and O'Rourke, in that order. With a big gap after that before the next bunched contenders - all of whom are trading lower to be the Dem nominee than Mike Pence is to be the Republican nominee.

Biden should have contended in 2016. A viable non-Bernie alternative to HRC might have very well won the nomination and probably beaten Trump. It would have been for Obama's third term, which would have been a pretty good sell, I think.

Hindsight is 20-20.

Leave it to the Dems to throw an old white man up as their anti-Trump.

EDIT: LOL. Should have said moderate old white man. Sorry Bernie.

If us Democrats are good at anything, its fucking up free wins.

The Democrats need somebody that will get minorities out to the polls and that ain't Bernie.

Neither Bernie, nor Biden fire me up. Sigh. It's just like going back to the well again, and again, for that name. That was a great tactic in '16 wasn't it?



There are plenty of names in the hat who could be good choices, but because they aren't the big names, nobody wants to look at them. I still think that Booker is my person right now. Could change, but he's piqued my interest the most.

Good news for the American public although Kamala Harris probably gets a sad from it.

I think Harris has the best chance right now but Booker is in a good place if a front runner slips up.

Anyone besides Bernie or Warren

William Happer is Trump’s pick to chair new climate change panel - Vox

Amazing ...


Also, any hate tweets against the Netherlands yet ?

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/182335...utch-historian

That Tucker Carlson interview was awesome. Tucker absolutely lost it when he compared him to AOC. The Rights fear of that woman is so extreme and hilarious that it has to be the most entertaining political show going right now. My facebook feed is so full of memes about how stupid she is, without a single one actually attacking anything she actually has said/done. It is so obvious how dangerous the very idea of her is to the Right.

So I missed this yesterday, but Harris's son, an assistant US attorney, testified that he had warned his father about Dowless repeatedly and cut off contact with him when it became apparent that his father was going to hire Dowless. Then when his father acted shocked that someone would break the law like Dowless and promised to turn over his emails, he ended up not doing that...so his son did it instead. Game over for Mr. Harris at this point I think:


https://popular.info/p/the-anti-ivanka

Booker is one of my least favorite candidates in the Dem pool. I don't understand why he's so popular - he strikes me as a self-serving, grand-standing centrist who is basically duplicating Obama's playbook because it's the most obvious and politically expedient route to take.

Bernie and Warren are top of the list for me, with Gillibrand increasingly intriguing me - depends on how much of her leftward shift is legitimate vs political opportunism.

Harris is on the stand now in NC. Says about his son testifying against him:


"my 27-year-old son" is "a little judgmental and has a little taste of arrogance and some other things. And I'm very proud of him and and love him with all my heart."

The second part answers the first, at least for me.

Agreed. Duplicate Obama is far more appealing to me than either Warren or Bernie.

The apoplexy "Obama II: Electric Boogaloo" would send the #MAGA set into would be great for popcorn futures.

Obama is probably the most popular living Democrat, among Democrats, and it likely isn't even close to whoever is #2. Replicating Obama's playbooks seems to be genius if you can do it.

And, you know, there are still many centrist/slightly left Dems out there. Both Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are speaking more moderately than their New England or California opponents for a reason.

I was not at all a fan of hers at first. I almost certainly would've voted for Crowley int he primary if I lived in that district. And she was making some comment about how we need to run progressives in red states because Bernie did so well in those Dem primaries, which I thought was a dumb comment that showed a lack of understanding of the differences between primary and general electorates in those states.

However, I really like the way she has handled the increased spotlight she is getting because of the ridiculous attention from the Fox News crowd. Her campaign finance questioning was outstanding. And it's endlessly entertaining how upset all the conservatives get at anything she does.

Harris calls for a new election in NC-says he is not up to more testimony due to his recent strokes, and left after calling for a re-do election.

Actually that makes some more sense than you'd think. For too long in really red states, Democrats would run someone who tried to appeal to moderates, which didn't work at all. So the idea was let's run someone Progressive to rally the base and see how many folks you can get to turn out. Stacey Abrams almost won the Governor in GA by doing that strategy (which was far more successful than the last few Dems running for statewide office - Jason Carter and Michelle Nunn and some dude who was known for his hat... I'm not kidding - who tried to be moderates).

Thinking about the Democratic primaries, here is my personal (very prelim) ranking among those who have announced and those who I think will announce:

1) Cory Booker
2) Sherrod Brown (yet to announce)
3) John Hickenlooper (yet to announce)
4) Julian Castro
5) Kirsten Gillibrand
6) Elizabeth Warren
7) Amy Klobuchar
8) Jay Inslee (yet to announce/may not)
9) Kamala Harris
10) Pete Buttigieg
11) Joe Biden (yet to announce)
12) Bernie Sanders
13) John Delaney (who?)
14) Tulsi Gabbard

Roger Stone's apology to the judge today under oath:


"I believe I abused the order for which I am sorry. I am kicking myself over my own stupidity. I offer no excuse for it, no justification. It was the outgrowth of a lapse in judgement."

I'm not talking about light red states like Georgia (where Bernie got crushed), but more the deep red states that he swept. I agree that Abrams going all in on a progressive message was her best strategy, but that's not the way to win in WV, ND, SD, etc.

Big courtroom day I guess: Judge in Miami rules that federal prosecutors broke the law by signing a immunity to prosecution deal with Jeffrrey Epstein and concealed it from his victims.



Jeffrey Epstein case: Federal prosecutors broke law, judge says | Miami Herald

Thirded. As for the "self-serving, grandstanding" part, well yeah, he's a politician.
Thanks for dragging that out buddy. (And thanks to his son for being smart and honest.) Also, congrats to Robert Pettenger on retaining his House seat! (Okay, I don't actually know how special elections play out down here, but I've always thought retirees had a disproportionate effect in special elections, and they're heavily Republican in this district.) There will obviously be a ton of outside money poured in, which will also likely make most people dislike both candidates more.

His testimony was such transparent bullshit. He was lying like a kid caught fucking the cookie jar.

Judge rules on Stone's gag order:


Judge ABJ is modifying the gag order. "No Mr. Stone, I'm not giving you another chance. I have serious doubt whether you learned any lesson at all." He can no longer speak publicly about the investigation or case, but he can still fundraise and proclaim his innocence.


.Judge ABJ makes it clear that this is his second chance. "This is not baseball. There will not be a third chance," she says. ABJ is clear that she will detain Stone ahead of trial if he violates the new gag order.

North Carolina Election board passes a unanimous resolution calling for a new election in NC-09. Harris vs McCready-would not surprise me to see Harris drop out and would not surprise me to not drop out either.

Every time I walk in to the living room where my In Laws are binging FOX news they are talking about Jussie Smollett. It isn't as if they should be covering a story about a coast guard member who had a stockpile of weapons and a hit list of prominent democrats and CNN journalists. What could possibly have emboldened this guy.

I want to ask my MIL if she even knows the story but my wife has banned me from bringing stuff like that up with her.

Oh, and there is that little story about a republican rigging the NC election, but that black, gay, actor has committed such atrocities!!

How does Warren expect to win anything seeing how outraged everyone is over the Jussie stuff. Faking a hate crime and faking being NA may not be identical but the Venn diagram of people angry is pretty similar

I don't get any similarity between the two - one was a crime which someone undertook with a line towards deception for their own gain.

As far as I can tell the Warren/Native American thing is (1) Proven to have some substance (ie. the DNA test showed some heritage), (2) Is far from unusual in the US, I know loads of people personally who will swear blind they have Native American ancestry but have no proof beyond family stories indicating it, (3) I don't see her having said it as being some great 'ploy' to gain votes - its hardly a heritage which I expect made people think "that'd make her a great President" ...

I'm torn on Warren running on one hand I hate that Trump has an good avenue of attack on her, on the other I actually think she might make a good President ... and I expect whoever runs will have something made up to attack them with, probably with similar substance (cough) to Obama's birth certificate stuff ... as such I don't see why picking Warren is any different from anyone else, the Republicans will make up some slander on them.

Silly me, I thought when you let him be out on bail in the first place that was his second chance.

Yep, looks like we owe just short of $4k as well (and another $1200 for state).

Granted, we earned more than we did last year (not being unemployed for 2.5 months can do that). But the deduction changes (and likely changes to withholdings) didn't help any.

This one is tough. On the surface, it gives me great satisfaction to not allow her to return. I want to say F-you and all that.

On the other hand, she is a US Citizen and assume she was a non-combatant. I can understand the desperation her father (and family) is going through to bring back her daughter.

Don't know how really sincere her statement is below but it does strike the right chord with me. Trump wants other countries to take back their nationals so shouldn't that apply here? But Trump notwithstanding, I think I lean more towards not letting her back in.

The article doesn't say but I did ask myself if it would make a difference if she was native born or naturalized US citizen. I also wonder if Male/Female (non-combatant) also matters. I don't think they should but, to me, it does.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/polit...hip/index.html

I think this is a circumstance where you can be more creative. You let her back, take away her citizenship, give her the opportunity to be near her family, live in the us and show how she's changed, but you take away her right to vote and force her to get a green card or something.

She's earned a retribution from the country, but ostracizing her just pushes her back to people who would try and use her again. Let her back in, you have a legal ability to keep an eye on her, while showing some compassion and allowing her family influences to normalize her again.

If you really want to make it black and white, meaning all or nothing, I have no issue with leaving her outside the country forever. She's earned that, if nothing else. Decisions always have consequences and that was a big one.

This seems like a pretty clear cut case of treason under the constitution. She should be able to return but would be facing some pretty severe consequences.

Take her back, give her a trial, then hang her and bury her at sea.

Probably the closest me and JIMG will ever be aligned on something political.

I think if she gets back on US soil that it opens up more complications.


Hah, let's not forget Trump also.

Me and JIMG could not be farther apart on Trump unless he has suddenly decided to hate everything about the man.

I think he meant Trump would like to hang her too.

I'm not opposed to a legal process that ends in her citizenship being revoked if such a procedure is warranted, but I'm very opposed to the President suddenly having the power to revoke citizenship at will.

There has to be a legal process that's more refined than the president saying she's not allowed back in the country, right?

I was thinking about this early this morning when reading this thread. The campaign season for 2020 is going to be absolutely nuts. At least to me, Trump seems to be pushing more and more boundaries and time goes on. WTF is he going to be like when he's running for re-election?

Yes.

The loss of nationality statute is 8 U.S. Code § 1481. Just skimming a few cases, it looks like the normal course of events was a U.S. Citizen goes off to fight for his ancestral country in WWI or WWII, or Cuba during the revolution, or wherever, and the citizenship issue only comes up if they come back, or contact a U.S. embassy and try to get the wheels moving to come back. In which case they're denied entry, or, if they got in, deported, on the ground that they voluntary gave up their citizenship. And then that loss of citizenship is official.

So the U.S. would be justified in not letting her in, or, in letting her in, charging her with whatever crimes she committed, and then deporting her after she serves her sentence (if she's still alive by then). In either case, her loss of citizenship would be formalized as the grounds for keeping her out or kicking her out. Which is all done through the U.S. Attorney General and INS. The president can't strip someone's citizenship on his own, but he can "influence" the Attorney General's Office to, subject to the AG's self-enforced ethical duties and whatever independence they want to wield, though, I'm sure they'd be on the same page here.

One issue here is that Trump literally just pretty much "or elsed" European countries to take back their IS-recruits and wifes/children. Now he's refusing to do so himself.

I actually agree with the US refusing to allow her back, and the UK refusing to take back a girl in a similar situation, but whomario is right: Trump said literally 48 hours before this broke that all European countries should take back their IS members.

Even when he could easily win popular support over an issue, he manages to contradict himself :banghead:

Yeah, I've seen the reporting that she burned her US passport in an Instagram post? Is that like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy, or does it have some validity?

If we were looking at technicalities, would the US be put in a position where the only way to say she pledged allegiance to a foreign government we were at war with would be to acknowledge ISIL's claim of legitimacy?

In real life, yeah screw her, but I don't see why they wouldn't just bring her back and try her for treason. There's enough public stuff she posted encouraging violence against Americans and service members it would seem to be an easy case. Plus she's psycho enough she thinks not only should she be allowed to come back, but the US Government should also pay for therapy to deradicalize her, so she'd probably happily volunteer other incriminating statements if we pretended we'd take her back.

Didn't read about her extracurriculars while with her husband(s). Born in the US but lots of technicalities, seems like a squirrelly way to me though to avoid the question.

Still don't know but definitely leaning more towards saying a F-you. Sympathies to the family though for a wayward child. Can't begrudge a family for tying to doing its best they can.

Hoda Muthana: the ISIS recruit’s citizenship controversy, explained - Vox

The Mueller sentencing memo on Manafort is out and if you are in for a little light reading-its 800 pages or so :) A lot of it is redacted, so I'm waiting for the legal experts on Twitter to read it first :)


2-23-19 US Sentencing Memo Manafort DC | Sentence (Law) | Crimes

Turning the national 4th of July celebration into a campaign rally is an asshole move.

HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called “A Salute To America” and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2019

Ron Fournier
‏
Verified account

@ron_fournier
1h
1 hour ago


HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest religious celebrations in the history of Christianity on Dec. 25th. It will be called “Christmas” and everybody will gets gifts! Thanks to your favorite president, me!

Thing is, Nixon did the exact same thing. Because if you are president in constant fear of indictment, what better role model could you have but Nixon?

Bread and Games, why ditch the classics ?

Nearly puked at "by your favorite President, me!"

Broken record time for me.

James Fallows on Twitter: "If you have any experience in government, you will find these 78 seconds stupefying.

And if you don’t, let me tell you: this is stupefying.

(Lighthizer is right about how international trade agreements work.)… https://t.co/Znf5HwtV4y"

I know, I know. Still gets to me.

I like that Mexico is becoming a "buffer" (must have been some behind-the-scene agreement and/or threat).

I don't understand why Mexico allows the unauthorized into their country in the first place, why don't they control their borders. Don't really care or no real way to stop them or a combination?

Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities - Los Angeles Times

Let's get a couple things straight though.

We do want better controls on the border, better service, better eyes, better knowings about comings and goings of people and objects. That's the entire point of CBP. For years, it's been a hot button issue with broad support, that was largely ignored by administrations on the left and right.

Money spent in a good way, with proper channels for addressing the issues as they arise, along with a process that doesn't take years to unfold, while addressing the humanitarian needs of those who truly need help. That should be the ultimate end game.

Saying trump is winning because he's getting his way wouldn't be the way that I would see it, other than he's making Mexico basically create a queue line for the Americans to deal with. trump's ideal solution here is more akin to Jon's call for direct extrajudicial killings of border crossers because they are all so very dangerous and out to get you. Building a wall, with no supportive technology, no additional bodies to police it, no way to maintain it, no other supports, other than to simply build it and be able to put your name on it is a complete waste of resources. There's a path to success for him here, if he'd just open his eyes to how he can succeed, and get rid of his wall demands.

Mexico is a huge country, with one of the biggest cities on the planet, yet it's vastly rural without the sorts of infrastructure that we have here. The central government isn't strong enough to deal with most of the issues that arise as a result, the local and state police are often in control of the local gangs, in a way, or as a way to support themselves. Corruption is rampant and the Feds simply don't have the numbers to root all of it out, everywhere. The massive violence and gang killings that were seen across most of Northern Mexico were a result of the last efforts to get things in control there. I will say this, by and large, Mexicans are some of the hardest working, nicest people that I've ever run across. Most of them are humble and just want to be able to make ends meet like anyone else. I was just in Mexico City and with all it's issues, it's still a very pretty city underneath. It's a shame that it can't all be cleaned up and the money moved other places. Mexico is exactly what a country with a weak central government looks like.

I don't know why you think this was the original plan. I never saw what would have gone into the $30-$40B version but pretty sure it would have some/all of this. Sure an argument can be made that the $1.5-$2B or the $5B version doesn't have all this stuff but is that Trump's fault?

His fault is not making this a top-top priority vs tax cut in his first year (just like Obama didn't think immigration reform was important enough to spend his political chips in his first two years. I personally agree that Health Care reform was much more important).

Almost certainly not, is the thing. The $40-50 billion cited by opponents was construction + maintenance costs in the first ten years, IIRC.

That was just to acquire the land, build the 2000 miles of wall, and keep it maintained. All of the other stuff would have been an *additional* cost.

Now, that said, Trump wasn't spending his "political chips" at all in his first two years. He was content to let Congress do the heavy lifting and lob the occasional rhetorical bomb, and Congress' focus was on "repeal every word of Obamacare" and "let's cut taxes for corporations and call it a win for the middle class."

This was a President who had long-time members of his own party cowed because they feared angering his base, and he couldn't be bothered to make his wall a priority.

Now he's throwing temper tantrums because Democrats took the House and have been adamant that they aren't going to give him his wall, so he's trying to usurp the House's Constitutional prerogatives for an "emergency" he freely admits isn't one ("I just want to do it faster").

I used to have conversations like this with a client service VP at my old company.

VP: Can we make this change to our agreement?

Me: No, we've never been willing to make that change because it impacts others involved.

Him: Well, what if we did it in a side letter?

Me: That would still have the same impact, so no.

Him: But it's not in the contract.

Me: It still changes our obligations and we'd be bound to it.

Him: But it's a side letter.

And so it would go. Just change the name to an MOU and it's the same discussion. Difference is I was talking to a corporate VP instead of everyone's favorite president, Trump!

It's hard for me to convey why that hurts me so much. I guess it's just the... nerve? He hears the term for presumably the first time, hears the three words, and presumes that he understands it clearly enough to back down a subject matter expert, not once but twice.

I mean...it's okay for a non-government person to not be familiar with the exact term "memorandum of understanding." Fine. But once you are in the government business, it ceases to be okay to be completely unfamiliar with the stuff that you are actually doing. And then, after you are so enthusiastically ignorant to skip the sort of briefings or meetings that might put you into a position to understand something, to then push all your chips in that your personal third-grade understanding of something must be right just because it seems right to you. I don't even know how to classify that.

With my usual caveat... it's only the 87th most offensive thing he has done since, say, the first of the year, but ugh.

I think the thing I hate most about Trump is it makes me look at people I care about, in some cases deeply, who happen to support him, and question if they are the person I always thought they were. Thankfully my wife is on my side.

It seems to indicate that the wall wasn't really all that important to him except as a political rallying cry. Tax cuts will actually make him a ton of money, so...

I'm also on the don't let her back train. There's some choices and lines that you make and cross, you can't return. These are among that number.

I think it would be just like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. There's a few things that give the U.S. grounds to strip your citizenship, but you can only disclaim it yourself by submitting an application at an embassy or consulate and making a declaration. Otherwise, it could just be an artistic expression.


I was wondering that too, the statute uses the term "foreign state". I don't think the U.S. Attorney General's Office pursuing revocation on that ground would be conceding that ISIL is legitimate for any other context. A legal argument made by one government entity doesn't bind all others. But, I guess it could be a theoretical defense to a citizenship revocation request that ISIL is not a "foreign state" under the language of the statute. But I'm guessing it wouldn't fly. The plain meaning of "foreign state" does not necessarily require legitimacy. You can have an illegitimate foreign terrorist state - it's still a foreign state. And it'd be hard to argue that the legislature didn't intend ISIL and similar organizations to "count" under that language.

Apparently they've changed the titles of all the documents from MoU to Agreement.

Honestly.

They did that.

I think I'd be more inclined to bring her back and try her for treason (which looks as slam dunk as any other case I've seen). Would rather have her locked away for life than potentially causing harm to other people in the future. Also would avoid thorny issues as noted above regarding IS's legal status, etc.

They should bring her back and have her speak with other kids like her. Put her on some kind of probationary semi citizenship until she has done enough good to redeem herself and prove how sincere her statements are. She may never do enough, but her experience being relayed first hand would likely be helpful to deter those who are naive enough to romanticize ISIS or a similar group in their minds.

I like the idea of using her as a deterrent for other kids who may consider doing something similar.

I think they should put her on trial, then broadcast her execution by firing squad on every network.

It would be fascinating to see how the courts would handle Article III, Section 3 in the social media era.

Can't convict her of treason without a confession in open court or two witnesses to the same overt act. Does two people seeing a tweet or a video constitute being an eyewitness to treason?

I guess that might work if your goal is to make more martyrs... (I mean fundamentalists would have a field day with that one - might as well die on your own terms as opposed to having your shooting death broadcast)

Yeah, I'm more for the lock her up and let her languish in prison for a good amount of time.

That's not really a deterrent. I would imagine that would actually make recruiting far easier for extremists.

I don't want to bring her back just to put her on trial, send her to prison for a lifetime or execute her. Too many good defense attorneys and even if she is convicted, way too much money spent on her imprisonment.

If we all agree she is treasonous and doesn't deserve the privilege of being a US citizen, then my vote is leave her out of the country and let her find husband 4+

TBH, I'm a little surprised at the response re: her. I had thought there would be more sympathetic views.

Admittedly I cannot find "the plan" and what it states (if you find it please provide a link). However, I will point you to this C-span site where there are representatives and supporters of Trump's wall that discusses technology and personnel.

Border Protection Official Briefs Construction Wall, Mar 30 2018 | C-SPAN.org

I will concede that Trump likely did not go into the details other than beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it but the c-span transcripts indicates it was more than just building a wall and leaving it alone.

My point was you don't need a wall as trump desires it. You can't say that trump meant border security either. trump didn't mention anything other than a wall. He has never laid out a plan himself, only a wall. Why not? Because he's too simple minded, too lazy, and frankly only cares about building a wall. If other people, like you know, career civil servants and government officials, say there's some good stuff we can do he might like to add that to get support, but only if it furthers his straight up, simple desire for a wall. We know his MO now, after more than 2 years. People who say stuff he likes, are the greatest, people who don't are dumb. He completely disregards credentials, facts, science, and what have you. He's only interested in being surrounded by 'yes' men and women. So to point to some larger plan as a project and call it a trump plan is no accurate. His only plan is 'WALL'.

Because like everything else he does there is no plan. He will spend, spend, spend, until there is no money, then screw over the little guy.

If we all agree she is treasonous, shouldn't we capture or arrest her so that she doesn't continue to pose a threat? And then given she is a citizen, shouldn't we afford her a trial? And sentence her accordingly?

Pretty sure Supreme Court precedent doesn't require this to be eyewitnesses.

So I keep getting news notifications about this meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un, like it's a big deal.

The first time, I got. It was historic on the face of it, since no one could get crazy into a room to talk about anything.

But this time, I don't see the point. From everything I have read Kim didn't do anything he promised, or at least nothing significant. Like last time, all another meeting does is lend him legitimacy.

The unstated mission again just seems to be "let's just get our names in the papers but not actually accomplish anything."

It wasn't a case of nobody could, but instead, nobody would. American presidents didn't want to give the Kim family the legitimacy of having face to face meetings.

The other fun part is that they're having meetings with no press and Sergey Lavrov also happens to be in Hanoi

I remember Obama getting melted down by conservatives just for mentioning the prospect of meeting with him.

Total coincidence I'm sure

Harris not running in the new NC election due to his health he says. No word yet on who the R's might run against McCready.


Mark Harris announces he will not run in NC District 9 special election

McCrory out, hearing Pettenger's wife (who is loaded) doesn't want him running again either. The special election rules allow local and state politicians to run without giving up their current seat, so it could get very crowded.
This does actually appear to be in question. It centers on when her father stopped being a Yemeni diplomat, and given the other context it's worth noting that it was initially the Obama administration that argued she wasn't.

I do agree I'd rather just bring her back and incarcerate her, but the initial reporting made it seem like Trump was unilaterally deciding people weren't citizens, and that doesn't appear to be the case when you look into it.

I'd been wondering if anyone was keeping tabs on where Vlad was, but this is close enough.

Actually, he was no longer a diplomat when she was born. The issue is when the government was notified he was no longer a diplomat, which happened three months after she was born. So it's a delayed filing technicality that's causing the dispute.

So you probably will not want to go anywhere near the internet or tv tomorrow if you are against Michael Cohen testifying publicly tomorrow/pro-Trump. We've already had one Republican congressman (Gaetz) try witness intimidation/tampering after Cohen testified privately today and I'm sure there will be more outrageous behavior on both sides before its over on Thurs.



"Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot..."

Interesting that you have to go through a UN protocol instead of just informing the country. Also interesting to see that the UK is trying to revoke citizenship in their case, but on equally debatable grounds (they say she *could* get Bangladeshi citizenship, Bangladesh is saying she was never a citizen and why the hell would we want her) Hoda Muthana and Shamima Begum: Citizenship and Expatriation in the U.S. and U.K. - Lawfare

What an utter jackass.

Mother of God, Cohen’s prepared remarks: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...d-bfb99a790001

So, today, we've got...
-The President getting tight with is dictatorial buddy in Vietnam.
-While tweeting about a Democratic Senator's military service (ignoring the fact that he himself didn't serve),
-While removing American reporters from the summit dinner,
-While ignoring a conflict between two nuclear powers on the same continent,
-While his former fixer is testifying in Congress about covering up his affairs and his ties to WikiLinks.

Just another day in the life--matter of fact I shoveled another three inches of snow this morning.

The Frog has been boiled and now the bones are in the bottom. The goal worked as the American Public have been so overwhelmed by it all that they're numb.

Fox News' headline on this:

"Cohen to accuse Trump of knowing about Roger Stone-WikiLeaks plot, but deny 'direct evidence' of Russia collusion"

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I don't know if you read Cohen's prepared remarks but the way he put it, that headline is more or less accurate.

Whether it's actually true, of course...

I did, and it is from a direct quote from his statement, yes. But to me it feels disingenuous because the rest of his statement documents many times when Trump was in direct contact with Russians for personal gain and the times he personally worked with Russia on behalf of Trump, which basically prove that everyone in Trump's campaign lied to congress about contacts with Russians, there are countless crimes during the campaign and after becoming president that Cohen is discussing. Yet Fox News headline is basically "NO COLLUSION". So many people on the right have been conditioned to believe that every news source but Fox News is actively lying to them, and the entire takeaway those people are going to have is "NO COLLUSION."


By the way, I want to point out that this guy is clearly a known and proven liar and anything he says without proof I'm going to be wary of. But I'm very interested in the many times where he says he has documentation proving information on crimes committed by Donald Trump. When he says that he personally overheard a call between Stone and Trump on wikileaks, I'm wary. If that's true I hope Meuller has a lot of other information and evidence to prove it, because this douchebag's statement alone without proof just isn't enough.