13

Honestly by now you’d think the media would be better than this. Regarding the issue of Rudy Giuliani’s latest trainwreck series of interviews why not simply employe Occam’s Razor?

Here’s Rudy’s latest:

Rudy has actually employed the ‘If he did it’ defense-the OJ Simpson defense-numerous times by now. Yet the MSM still flails about mystified refusing to draw even the most tenuous conclusions. But again-how about Occam’s Razor?

This is a basic legal principle-if someone says something against their own interest it’s treated as much more likely to be true, particularly regarding self interested liars like Trump and his GOP co-conspirators. And not for nothing but:

Indeed, even Paul Waldman-in a very good article yesterday-used this formulation:

Trump’s corruption keeps getting more obvious.”

We’ll try to sort through the changing stories about the Trump Organization’s efforts to put together a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow while Trump was running for president, but here’s what’s most vital to understand: You don’t have to believe the absolute worst version of this scandal, where every accusation reveals an actual crime, to admit that Trump was and is both deeply corrupt and utterly dishonest.”

Again, it’s an excellent article that I agree with him on essentially every point-and he’s only using a logical device-but by now maybe always believing the worst until proven otherwise is the most rational approach to take regarding  illegitimate ‘President Trump’ and his GOP co-conspirators? I mean I’ve presumed the worst at every point going back to DC Leaks and Russia if you’re listening! and haven’t had to walk back anything yet-maybe if we finally had a damn public hearing on Russia already that might even happen, but I digress.  I mean as Yuri Applebaum points out in his excellent case for the Democrats opening an impeachment inquiry today-open it today not impeach Trump today-one of the many virtues of the process-as impeachment is a process more than a destination-one of the many zombi ideas from Jamie Raskin’s  Fraidy Cat Democrats is the canard that you can’t impeach unless you’re fairly certain at the outset that Mitch McConnell-who is in his own right the most mendacious and despicable kind of traitor to this country-will convict-is discovery.

Discovery might even at some point lead the supremely self interested Mitch McConnell to do the right thing not for the right reasons but for his own self preservation and that of his GOP Senate members.

For those of you who might very well want to accuse me of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’-well, maybe if we had legitimate public hearings we’d be in a better position to differentiate reality from tinfoil hat conspiracy as Applebaum points out:

“The fight over whether Trump should be removed from office is already raging, and distorting everything it touches. Activists are radicalizing in opposition to a president they regard as dangerous. Within the government, unelected bureaucrats who believe the president is acting unlawfully are disregarding his orders, or working to subvert his agenda. By denying the debate its proper outlet, Congress has succeeded only in intensifying its pressures. And by declining to tackle the question head-on, it has deprived itself of its primary means of reining in the chief executive.”

]With a newly seated Democratic majority, the House of Representatives can no longer dodge its constitutional duty. It must immediately open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and bring the debate out of the court of public opinion and into Congress, where it belongs.”

But the notion that the MSM is so quick to dismiss the Buzzfeed article as fake news is stunning.

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1086441997148307456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1086441997148307456&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fevilsax.pressbooks.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D5272%26action%3Dedit

So Fournier is literally willing to go that far  in validating Trump’s canard when he doesn’t even know-no one does-specifically what was in that article that’s allegedly ‘inaccurate.’ And let’s be clear for an article to have a few inaccuracies is far from making it fake news. Fake news is what we get in Sarah Huckabee’s press conferences-not that I’m conceding even that point: Ben Smith continues to stand strongly behind his story and his track record is a lot better than Trump and his GOP co-conspirators.

The notion that former prominent reporter like Fournier would check in just to use Trump’s smear against journalists is appalling.

Is the notion that Trump would ask Michael Cohen to lie really so hard to believe-seeing as the Post had to create a new category of dishonesty, the Bottomless Pinocchio and that he lies about 73.5% of the time? As Marcy Wheeler has pointed out the NY Times has already reported the same-though they’ve refused to connect the dots and describe Trump’s behavior as subornation of perjury. Of course not-the Times only gets way out in front of the known facts when the subject is Hillary Clinton.

Again, Occam’s Razor might even suggest that you simply always presume Trump is lying. It wouldn’t be entirely accurate either but much closer to reality than the MSM’s continued preference for taking him at his word until proven otherwise. Why not take it for a lie until proven otherwise? Of course, no one lies every time, not even Trump, though he gives it his good, level best. Perhaps it’s not humanly possible to always lie-arguably the logicians figured out in the time of Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein that it’s not even logically possible.

Trump doesn’t always lie just almost three of every four times he speaks. The best way to evaluate his statements then would be not to assume he’s lying but to assume he’s not operating in good faith-he doesn’t’ always lie, just most of the time, but he always operates in bad faith. If you assume that you get some help in figuring out which one of the latest four things he says that very well might actually be true-the thing that if true would not be in his interest.

As for Giuliani when you apply the same logic to his roiling clown show that you do to Trump-as Trump’s co-conspirators follow the same modus operandi as he does: he doesn’t always lie but he always operates in bad faith-it’s not very hard to decipher his bumbling PR offensive.

Malcom Nance got it right last night on Ari Melber-when Rudy says things that far from helping Trump seems to reveal a brand new scandal we previously had no inkling of those are actually true. The later denials are cleanup after Trump reams him out. To be sure, for all we know Trump himself is who tells him to commit these bloopers half the time-Trump often wrongly things something is a good strategy until he sees that the news coverage is actually awful-then he pretends it wasn’t his idea. So the working assumption ought to be that Rudy’s bloopers are accurate and his later denials are just cleanup.

And this is based on a very basic legal principle-with characters as self serving and who operate in as bad a faith as Trump and his co-conspirators, you have to assume that when they say things that are actually antithetical to their own interests, these things are much more likely to be true. What would be the possible benefit Rudy would have in falsely claiming Trump was still working on the Moscow Trump Tower deal in November, 2016? Ok, yes, maybe a lot of times he makes things up-though I’m skeptical, I don’t think Trump would let him go rogue-but even if so why would Rudy make up something that was actually very damaging if true?

Speaking of Ari Melber I was disappointed that he too seems to be accepting the MSM conventional wisdom that the Buzzfeed story was false-after all, Mueller says so. He seems to be little bothered if at all that it’s now clear that the Trump Russia House called Mueller and asked his office to offer up a denial.

Melber seems to think it’s perfectly reasonable for Mueller to suddenly decide to ‘correct’-without telling us what was incorrect-but what is alarming is the idea that what propelled the denial was the Democrats-finally discussing impeachment. What changed that Mueller suddenly involved himself in knocking down ‘inaccurate’ stories? Well, we now have Matt Whittaker running the DOJ-with Bill Barr, Bush Sr’s AG who pardoned Capser Weingberger during the 1992 election-coming.

This just makes it even more urgent that the Democrats move out of their waiting for Mr. Mueller poise already.

As Chairman Elijah Cummings put it last week on 60 Minutes there’s in truth much less than 2 years to get to the bottom of what happened in that election-Congress only meets a little more than a third of a year, so in truth they have eight months to get to the bottom of it; for this reason, Cummings persuasively argues the Dems need not to hit the ground running but  flying. 

Meanwhile Barr won’t even commit to releasing the Mueller report when he’s done-for all we know we’ll get some redacted mess that answers few meaningful questions-while the Democrats wait for Mr. Mueller like Samuel Beckett’s characters waited for Godot we don’t even know what they’re actually waiting for or when it might present itself.

What if it’s not for another year? Oh, well, Barney Frank will say, let’s just win the election now and forget getting to the bottom of what happened in our election. Let’s ‘heal’ by letting Trump and his GOP co-conspirators off the hook.

On the one hand the Democrats have taken pains to argue that Trump can be indicted. As a matter of logic they are no doubt right, though, I presume the legal experts who know Mueller are themselves right that Mueller will follow the presumption that a President can’t be indicted until after office. It may not have any logic or fact behind it but it’s conventional wisdom within the Washington legal world and he’s not going to deviate from that. Now the SDNY-which handed down that rather harsh sentence on Cohen-as well as the NY AG may well see things differently,.

Yet the Democrats speak stronger for indictment of Individual One-which they have no control over-than impeachment of ‘President Trump’ which they actually do. This has led some to speculate that the Democrats are hoping Mueller-or if not him then hopefully the SDNY or NY AG-bail them out of having to impeach.

What this fails to understand is that impeachment is more important in terms of the public interest than indictment. Indictment is about Trump as Individual 1 but impeachment is an indictment of his illegitimate ‘Presidency.’ All of which is not to say don’t indict him if that’s where the evidence leads, there must be no more Gerald Fords, just that impeachment is the highest priority.

But now that Mueller’s office has taken it upon itself to knock down stories that could lead to Trump’s impeachment, he is effectively having it both ways-he won’t indict Trump yet is trying to prevent the Democrats from impeaching him.

Michael Isikoff made a very good point on Chris Hayes last night: it’s high time the Democrats stop deferring to Mueller.

Ok, you might have noticed I’m a little anxious and impatient at this point LOL. But-you’ll have to excuse me, it’s been two years and counting and not a single public hearing on Russia.  And we’re already hearing that Cohen will answer nothing about Russia. Will he have any relevant testimony that isn’t already public knowledge? 

I sure hope so. Because as Yuri Applebaum correctly says, what matters so much about the impeachment process is discovery. As Iskikoff pointed out last night it’s been two years since Congress opened the Russia investigations-both in the Senate and the House and we have yet to have a single public hearing. You get Democrats saying Trump in the low 40s-it’s actually fallen since #TrumpShutdown-is too popular to impeach, and they may have a point, although the GOP impeached Clinton in the high 60s.

But again, what they fail to grasp is that the impeachment process might well reveal information that will drop Trump’s, ahem, soaring popularity. 

Yet we’ve not had a single public hearing in two years. Adam Schiff related on Maddow last year-Chapter A-how the GOP complained to him after Comey’s March, 2017 testimony to the fact of the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion that it was ‘a terrible day.’ Devin Nunes and friends learned their lesson-they didn’t have a single public hearing on Russia for the rest of their so-called ‘investigation’ that they ended so prematurely. With the Democrats now in charge-and needing to make up for all this lost time-again, like Chairman Cummngs says, forget running it’s time for flying-it’s incumbent on them to understand that at this stage of the game closed door hearings into Russia are of very limited value.

First and foremost it’s about sunlight. Having said that, why haven’t the House Democrats already released all the testimony that Nunes has kept hidden already? They sent it to Mueller so he can hide it from us and maybe run more defense for ‘President Trump’ if the I word comes up again.

Again, it’s time to stop waiting for Mueller and start asserting yourselves as the coequal branch with your own authority and prerogatives.

Yet, alas, let’s take it easy and wait for Mueller seems is clearly the Dem party line at this point in time. While Trump and the GOP have tried to raise anxiety that-the Democrats could impeach ‘President Trump’, which is very unpopular, with only half the country already supporting it without a single public hearing; Trump claims there will be riots if he’s impeached; there weren’t riots when Clinton was and he was a lot more popular than Herr Trump-the reality is quite the opposite where Rashida Tlaib very much the exception, and wait for Mueller is the rule:

The big picture: There’s been a cable news feeding frenzy over the “I” word, fueled in part by freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s bleep-worthy call for ousting the president. But the reality is that the vast majority of new House Democrats are right in line with their caucus’ leadership; they’re uninterested in discussing impeachment before special counsel Robert Mueller finishes his work.”

“Instead, they emphasized aggressive Democratic oversight, including opening investigations into the president, his campaign and his administration.”

By the numbers: Of the 64 new House Democrats:

  • 48 believe Congress should wait for the Mueller report’s release before considering impeachment.
  • 7 go a little further, saying that language is “not helpful.”
  • 6 support impeaching the president.
  • 3 have not made clear, on-record statements.

Rep. Al Green of Texas, the first member of Congress to introduce an Article of Impeachment against President Trump in 2017, confirmed this sense of hesitancy to Axios:

  • “I can assure you that there is far more pressure on people who are supportive of impeachment not to impeach than there is on those who don’t favor it to impeach. Exponentially more.”

Behind the scenes: Privately, many of the new freshmen say that Trump may have committed impeachable offenses. But they also argue that impeachment doesn’t have a chance of succeeding in the Senate under Republican control, and they think, politically, the messaging could have the adverse effect if they broach the subject too soon — further animating Trump’s base ahead of 2020.

Let us note, yet again, that this idea that impeachment is a failure if the Senate doesn’t ultimately convict is a fallacy and the process of an impeachment inquiry will-though both news coverage and especially discovery-increase political support for impeachment and of possibly removing Trump.

  • One Democratic aide told Axios that many of the new members who flipped red districts want to take a breather before committing to a hardline message on impeachment.

Meanwhile, “Need to Impeach,” the campaign led by billionaire activist Tom Steyer, told Axios that impeachment was an integral part of the last election cycle, and they find it alarming that new members are saying one thing behind closed doors and another thing publicly.

“They’re saying he’s corrupt and the most divisive president in American history, but then publicly they’re running from the word impeachment. … They’re putting all their eggs in the Mueller basket, but the Trump administration is playing every possible game to discredit the investigation. They have a constitutional duty to hold Trump accountable and impeach him.”
— Kevin Mack, lead strategist for Tom Steyer’s “Need to Impeach” campaign

The bottom line: A handful of progressive freshmen Democrats looking to push the party to the left have taken the lion’s share of the media attention devoted to their class.

This putting all the eggs in Mueller’s basket is itself an abdication-to catalogue the pitfalls of this strategy yet again, we don’t know for a fact that there even will be a report, we don’t know for a fact if there is a report what will be publicly released-William Barr, the AG who pardoned the Iran-Contra co-conspirators during Bush Sr.’s  1992 reelection campaign-has refused to pledge he will make it public. Now we have the recent instance of Mueller’s office knocking down a story-without specifics-because it led some Democrats to finally raise the specter of impeachment-and we now know that Trump’s legal team through perhaps numerous conduits-Rosenstein’s office, but apparently Rudy as well, and perhaps Whittaker-to give the Dems some credit Nadler and friends are having Whittaker testify on February 8 as to wether he spoke with the SCO office prior to the retraction.

.Ironically, then, Mueller has perversely enough-until now-in many ways protected Trump. Of course Trump and his GOP co-conspirators didn’t want the SC investigation but right away the GOP used it as a pretext to scale back whatever hearings they had. The atrocious Nunes Report after Nunes prematurely shutdown the Russia investigation claimed they saw no evidence of collusion-but they didn’t even interview, Flynn, Manafort, or Papadopoulos-they didn’t find evidence as they literally didn’t look.

When pushed on such an absurd and glaring omission their response was that  somehow interviewing Flynn, Manafort, or Papadopoulos would undermine Mueller. Yet the main reason Trump is at 40% today rather than 20 % is because of the lack of public hearings. Mueller’s beyond closed doors investigation has in this sense held Trump’s poll numbers up, thereby giving Fraidy Cat Dems the pretext to rule out impeachment. Mueller has been the excuse for Congress not to do its job. Yet at the end of the day, what to do about Trump is a political question much more than a legal one for which Congress not Mueller needs to answer. ‘

I just wish we could have more confidence the Democrats understand this. Sam  Houston didn’t ask permission from Leon Jaworksi to do a Congressional investigation-it was understood Congress has its own role.

Now for some great news: Kamala Harris is running.

 

https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1087352420047441922

 

It’s important to remember what in particular has made her so popular with so many in the base. Yes, after the way it was stolen from Hillary there is just a very strong desire to finally break the ‘highest, hardest glass ceiling.’ Michael Avenatti had tried to argue that to win in 2020 Democrats need to nominate a white, male. When he said this, it was essentially the end of his own chance at being seriously considered for the job.

It was stunning actually-did he not realize what party this is? If he thinks only white males should be President he should be in the GOP. I mean presumably he voted for Obama and Hillary yet he’s saying this in 2018? And the truth is that in 2020 being a white male will for once not be an advantage-arguably it may be something of a disadvantage. I mean personally I actually had at least considered  Avenatti before he said that, but that was the beginning of the end.

Add footnote: I liked his combative style his idea that ‘when they play dirty we hit harder’-I still believe there’s something in this-as I argue in Chapter A-the one thing the GOP has understood since Nixon is that the best defense is a good offense,  a lesson it’s not clear even now the Dems totally understand-though he’s clearly the wrong vessel.

But my amateur polls last week were interesting in that they were so unequivocal-Kamala Harris is simply the choice of Dem Twittter or at least that part of Dem Twitter that Mr. Weeks and Peter Daou have called ‘the Hillary ecosphere.’

But as dominant and overwhelming as Kamala-hey I love her first name ok? it’s what we Democrats do, we refer to our POTUS candidates by their first name: remember Hillary vs. Bernie? Then there’s #Beto madness, though he didn’t so so well in my casual poll, more below-was in the first round:

She was even more dominant in the 2nd:

I had wondered if Beto would do better-not even close. But regarding the issue of having a nonwhite male candidate, while it’s clear part of Kamala’s stunningly deep support-at such an early date:

You can’t understand Kamala’s huge support solely by the fact she’s an African American woman in a party where 20% is AA and they tend to vote in a bloc besides which there’s real hunger for a female candidate to correct the great wrong done to Hillary-like Reverend Jackson puts it: Hillary Clinton wasn’t upset, she was setup, her victory must be affirmed. 

As my own informal polls show, she blows away other female candidates-she beat Warren head to head 55-19 which is respectable only compared to what she did to Gillibrand: 55-3.

Many in the party won’t vote for Gillibrand after her grandstanding on Franken, demanding Clinton somehow retroactively ‘resign’ 20 years after the fact; as I noted in the chapter on Ruth Marcus, isn’t it telling that the same people who demand Clinton ‘resign’ 20 years after the fact call Trump ‘Mr. President.’

Gillibrand’s response has so far been to suggest that if you feel this way you’re either a misogynistic male, a wealthy donor, or better yet, both-totally missing the fact that it was the women of Twitter in particular who were up in arms after Franken was forced to walk the plank-judging by my Twitter mentions!

I wasn’t surprised Gillibrand didn’t do well though I was surprised at how poorly Booker did-he’s the only one with a better last name than first. This shows that while the base might prefer a woman or AA, it’s not enough. The base doesn’t want just any woman they want Kamala Harris. And not just any AA but Kamala Harris.

I wonder why Booker did so poorly. One theory is-he spends too much time telling us he isn’t going to attack Trump. While it’s true Kamala looks very strong right now, it’s also clear that the base wants someone who can take the fight to Donald Trump-rather than always avoiding the fight, avoiding the confrontation. Booker seems to do an inordinate amount of time telling us he’s not running against Trump but for a positive set of policy goals and worthy sentiments. 

“It’s not about what we’re against, but what we’re for,” Booker said. “In all of my elections that I’ve had, I’m not trying to beat Republicans, I’m trying to unite Americans. Because there’s not a right or left way to move forward. You move forward by moving forward.”

Sorry, but the base likely finds Rashida Tlaib’s position: Impeach the MFer’  better poetry this time around.

For her part, Kamala rose to such prominence among those of us in the Dem base for her strong performances on the Senate Judiciary Committee-her being the tough prosecutor cross examining Jeff Sessions-if you don’t remember anything why not bring notes-Brett Kavanaugh, and William Barr.

That’s very good as beyond the fact the base wants to finally break the glass ceiling, they want someone who will bring the fight to Herr Trump rather than tell us ‘I love him but he should not be President’ a la Cory Booker.

The base despises Trump, talks about locking him and his children up-as Trump and his Deplorables talk about locking up Hillary even after the rigged election and even the night after the #MAGABomber sent her a pipe bomb-along with Kamala, the Obamas, Pelsoi, and all the Dem leaders in the country.

If you doubt the base despises Trump you have’t spent any time on Democratic Twitter:

I know the MSM believes you have to criticize ‘both sides’ but here’s the difference: Trump is the bully and the base are these bullied kids who are finally mad as hell and not going to take it anymore-not just Trump but McConnell and Bush v. Gore, et, al.

I’m sorry, but the mood of the electorate right now isn’t Booker’s New Testament grace but some Old Testament accountability.

We’ve tried giving the GOP criminal traitors a pass-Nixon was pardoned, then Bill Clinton and the Democrats buried all Irangate questions-Iran Contra to say nothing of possible 1980 collusion-in a deep, dark grave. Then in 2000, Al Gore dismissed those in the Black Caucus who demanded a legitimate process: they wanted to fight the GOP Supreme Court’s illegitimate ruling but Gore himself handwaved it away: the rules do care. 

Then Obama and Pelosi did the same thing in 2009-give the Bush-Cheney criminals a pass, no indictments, not even any investigations. Each and every time the GOP-and the electorate-has responded with such ‘turning of the other cheek’ by kicking the Democrats right in the teeth.

This time it’s time for some Old Testament Justice.

The American people believe in Justice, they believe in accountability. It’s often said that Americans are forgiving. Sure but there’s a time for forgiveness and there’s a time for accountability. This is the time for accountability. In 1974 elite opinion decided ‘let’s look forward not back’ and Nixon was pardoned. Then Jimmy Carter wasted his power shortening the sentence on G. Gordon Liddy. 

But the American people weren’t at all happy and, despite the happy talk of GOP partisans like Gerald Ford, pardoning Nixon didn’t ‘enable the country to heal’ rather it only increased public cynicism-which, perversely benefitted the GOP even though what increased the public cynicism was the conduct of the GOP itself, as it’s the party of ‘government doesn’t work’ and drowning the government in the bathtub.’

When Obama let the Bush-Cheney and Wall Street criminals off the hook in 2009 this, again, increased public cynicism, setting the table for his own ‘shellacking’ in 2010. Why should the electorate keep the GOP in the penalty box if Obama himself had giving them amnesty?

If the Democrats screw this up again, then we may lose this country for a generation. First and foremost, please stop treating this like a normal time and talking brightly of ‘just beat him in 2020’ as if he’s 2016 election was legitimate in the first place.

As for Senator Harris she should ignore the Barney Franks of the world who sneeze at the Democratic base-this Dem base who wants Trump punished to the full extent of the evidence and the law-don’t take ‘law’ in a totally literal sense, take it also in the impeachment, ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ sense-and remember that the same folks who want to see Trump and his GOP co-conspirators pay dearly for this are who already favor her over her competitors by these huge margins.

Just remember when the old Dem guard sneezes at ‘tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists’ Ms. Harris, they are your base.

I would therefore urge you to always say the boldest things about investigations, impeachment, indictment, etc-don’t always bow to the very cautious Dem leadership. When she was asked on MSNBC the MLK morning she announced about impeachment she gave the Dem boilerplate script that we’ll see when Mueller’s report comes out. Ok, Senator, but you questioned William Barr yourself and saw how slippery he is-he won’t even commit to releasing the full, relevant report.

In all seriousness, a President Kamala Harris in 2021 must not do a Gerald Ford or even an Obama 2009. Chris Matthews was talking about how regular Americans of his generation were bitterly disappointed when Nixon was pardoned and the investigations stopped-they wanted to know what happened as well as see accountability.

It’s perhaps a little bit of a paradoxical position. The goal of her campaign is to defeat Donald Trump. Yet she would make a big mistake to tamp down on impeachment. I can imagine some campaign strategists arguing she’s better off up against a severely, hugely unpopular weakened Trump than say, John Kasich.

As I argued in (Chapter A) this is about TRUTH and JUSTICE not mere political expediency. Having said that rather grandly, the fact is that as noted above, Yuri Applebaum argues impeachment is a process not a destination. All things being equal a Presidential incumbent going through an impeachment inquiry is the ideal Presidential incumbent. As we know in Presidential politics, incumbency is very difficult to beat, but an incumbent going through the painful discovery process is a great exception.

All things being equal you’d much rather run against Trump in the middle of the impeachment process to Trump not in the middle of the impeachment process. In that vein, even on the level of political strategy, it’s in her interest to embrace rather than run from impeachment talk.

More generally, I’ve argued elsewhere in this book that Kamala ought to play to her real strength. Unfortunately she’s in Mitch McConnell’s Senate-while the House Dems get to have all the fun. Senator Harris really ought to consider giving updates-weekly, biweekly, monthly-on the status of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s work-mostly lack of work-on Russia, etc. Is Lindsay Graham obstructing justice for Trump? Great, talk about it at these press conferences.

Is that too bold?-to be going after her own Committee chairman, risking Lindsay’s mercurial wrath?  It would’t be for Rashida Talib or Alexandria Occasio-Cortez-who are both on Elijah Cummings Oversight Committee!

I literally can’t wait for February 7. I already literally couldn’t wait but this is like literally can’t wait times literally can’t wait times literally can’t wait…

And it’s not only the Freshman-just mostly-who get it on impeachment, Maxine Waters is one of the Old Guard veteran Dems who gets it:

Say what you want but Congresswoman Waters is doing the right thing-she’s representing the feelings and views of her constituents-as opposed to the many ‘FraidyCat Dems who spend all their time worrying about the feelings and views of Trump’s constituents.

 

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book