The on air and backstage talent at MSNBC couldn't help but laugh at the so-called resident's lawyer.
Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, insisted on Thursday that the resident “doesn’t support anyone telling lies.”
During an interview on MSNBC, host Ari Melber asked Sekulow about
people who were found to have lied to special counsel Robert Mueller’s
Russia investigators.
“Does the resident condemn the lies that interfered?” Melber pressed.
“I know which ones I believe you’re talking about,” Sekulow admitted.
“The resident doesn’t support anyone telling lies. Let’s be crystal
clear on that.”
As Sekulow spoke about Trump’s distaste for falsehoods, laughing could be heard on the set.
“In the course of this investigation, if people were under oath and
made inconsistent statements or statements that were material, there’s a
standard that applies under false statements,” he continued.
“I’m
trying to not be that technical. There’s a standard that applies. No one
supports someone talking about perjury or shaping testimony.”
Sekulow also confirmed that he was given the Mueller report two days before Congress was allowed access.
Trump went to Mt. Vernon and embarrassed himself and the entire country
while he was there. Ana Kasparian, Brett Erlich, and Nando Vila, hosts
of The Young Turks, break it down.
Devin Nunes should have stopped when he sued a fake cow for defamation,
but the California Congressman doesn’t know when to take a loss.
He’s
now suing the Fresno Bee newspaper over an article they printed last
year detailing lurid sex parties that happened at a fundraiser for a
winery that Nunes owns a stake in. The paper didn’t implicate Nunes in
the events, but he’s still mad as hell.
And, as Ring of Fire’s Farron
Cousins explains, that’s not even the funniest part of this ridiculous
lawsuit.
Ecudaor, which prides itself on its hospitality and spent almost $1
million a year protecting the WikiLeaks founder, saw his behavior as a
national insult.
By Associated Press
QUITO, Ecuador — The dramatic end to Julian Assange's asylum
has sparked curiosity about his 7-year stay inside Ecuador's Embassy in
London that was marked by his late-night skateboarding, the physical
harassment of his caretakers and even the smearing of his own fecal
matter on the walls of the diplomatic mission.
It
would've tested the patience of any host. But for tiny Ecuador, which
prides itself on its hospitality and spent almost $1 million a year
protecting Assange, it was also seen as a national insult.
"We've
ended the asylum of this spoiled brat," a visibly flustered President
Lenin Moreno said Thursday in a fiery speech explaining his decision to
withdraw protection of Assange and hand him over to British police.
"From now on we'll be more careful in giving asylum to people who are
really worth it, and not miserable hackers whose only goal is to
destabilize governments."
Black
women marry less than others - and the numbers are even lower for
darker skinned black women. Is colorism – favoring lighter skin – to
blame? Dream McClinton puts herself on the line to report
I take a deep breath and ready my fingers. I admonish myself for
being theatrical about something so mundane. Another deep breath.
“Here we go,” I mutter, pressing enter.
My profile has been created. It seems simple enough: swipe left to dismiss, swipe right to express interest.
The first eligible bachelor appears – not my type, I swipe left. Then
another follows – too young, I swipe left again. Ten swipes in, and I
find myself texting my eldest sister this was a bad idea. A feeling of
vexation settles over me.
I didn’t think I would ever have to use a dating app, but men don’t talk to me any other way.
I’ve spent so much time trying to understand what is so unattractive
about me that men shun me. At first, I thought it was because I was
intimidating – a word I’ve heard used to describe me. For a while, I
concluded I was “not that interesting,” a line I subsequently used as my
biography on social media. But those explanations won’t do.
The real issue is staring me right in the face: my deep mahogany skin.
Colorism – the prejudice based on skin tone – has stunted the
romantic lives of millions of dark-skinned black women, including me. We
are not as valued as our lighter-skinned counterparts when seeking
romantic partners, our dating pool constricted because of something as
arbitrary as shoe size.
Like other systems of racial inequality, American colorism was born
out of slavery. As slave masters raped enslaved women, their
lighter-skinned illegitimate offspring were given preferential treatment
over their darker counterparts, often working in the house as opposed
to the fields. This order has since been perpetuated by systemic racism
and internalized by black people. It remains alive even now, insidiously
snaking into my life.
I have many memories of being degraded
because of my complexion, the most piercing is from middle school: two
girls giggled in my Georgia history class during the showing of a
documentary about slavery. As the film explained the origins of skin
tone prejudice, one girl – biracial, hazel-eyed, and the only other
black girl in class – whispered that she would have been a house slave,
but that I would have been a field slave. As the famous image of whipped Peter played on screen, I sank down in my chair, silently greeting the weight of oppression on my 12 year old shoulders.
In many ways, nothing has changed since that day. Dark skin still not
only comes with the expectation of lower class but lessened beauty, not
to mention uncleanliness, lesser intelligence and a diminished
attractiveness. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, women like me see
successful black men coupled with fair-skinned female partners who pass
the paper bag test
– a remnant of the Reconstruction era, where the only black people
worthy of attention had to be lighter than a paper bag. This “test” was
even instituted in places such as historically black colleges and
universities as an informal part of the admissions process.
Today, this gradation discrimination remains. “It’s typical to see
light-skinned black women as representing beauty in the black community
and therefore being highly desirable for high-status spouses,” says Dr
Margaret Hunter, who teaches sociology at Oakland’s Mills College and
has studied the relationship between marriage and colorism for over two
decades. Hunter sums it up like this: “Black women in general marry less
than other races but darker-skinned black women marry men of lower
social status than the lightest-skinned black women.”
How likely people are to want to interact with others on OkCupid? Asian
women are 27% less likely to start a conversation with a black man than
other men. Black women receive the most consistently negative scores.
The lighter the shade, the higher the probability of marriage
Jasmine
Turner, owner of BlackMatchMade, a Chicago-based matchmaking company,
agrees this affects all black women. “Honestly, I think black women tend
to lower their standards because they’re finding challenges in dating.
Now I’m finding that black women are like ‘You know what, as long as he
has a good job and he’s a good person …’ No matter how successful they
are, they’re open to dating him.”
I’ve never been one to settle. I’ve taken this attitude to the app,
only searching for men who are gainfully employed and fairly
decent-looking. But I definitely understand what she means.
Previously,
dating has made me feel like I must drop some of my must-have criteria –
a college education, a steady job, and able and willing to pay for the
first date – in order to find a match. My mother has even scolded me for
it, telling me to raise my standards: “I’ve been on a lot of dates, and
no girl should ever pay for a first date!”
But my feelings of a necessary drop in standards have been validated
by research from Dr Darrick Hamilton, a professor of economics and
sociology at Ohio State University. Hamilton aggregated information from
the 2003 Multi-City Study of Urban Equality to identify why so many
dark-skinned women who date men remain bachelorettes. His assessment was
designed to show how the imbalance of eligible black males – taking
into account high incarceration rates and a limited labor market –
affects the marriage market.
His research shows that a scarcity in available “high-status”
husbands (defined as higher levels of education, not growing up on
public assistance, coming from neighborhoods that had less crime),
effectively leave black men in control of the dating selection process.
His data concluded 55% of light-skinned women were married while only
23% of dark-skinned women had jumped the broom.
“[Black men] have unnatural power within marriage markets that
enables them to bid up cursory characteristics like skin shade,”
Hamilton told me over the phone. In other words, the lighter the female,
the higher the probability of marriage. “One of the results that we
found was that [darker-complexioned] black women who have ‘higher
status’ faced a greater penalty in marriage markets than those with a
lower socioeconomic status.”
According to his research, I am the epitome of the “high-status”
option. College educated, familial middle class background, age 16-30,
able-bodied. But according to the equation, I haven’t the “social
capital” (read: skin tone) to seek a quality match.
But before even entertaining thoughts of marriage, I have to get past
the dating stage. Turner says she often sees black men pass up
perfectly eligible dark-skinned women. “Black men will say, ‘complexion
doesn’t matter’, but they might give that lighter complexion woman who
is very comparable to a darker-complexion woman a chance, when they
wouldn’t give that darker-skinned woman a chance.”
The
effects play out in the lives of women like me and my friend Larissa.
We usually like to talk about sci-fi books and traveling, but today I
ask her if she’s ever felt diminished by men due to her complexion.
“Sometimes, I can kinda feel their eyes sliding off of me to go the
pretty white girl next to me, or even the fairer-skinned Yara Shahidi
type,” she says, a twinge of sadness in her voice.
While she sees
herself getting married, she doesn’t know if she will end up with a
black man. “I don’t necessarily see myself walking down the aisle with a
black guy. Not because I’ve written them off or because I don’t want
to, but just realistically, based on how the dating life has been
treating me and how I’ve been approached.”
Julia Wadley of North Carolina’s matchmaking service EliSimone, which
caters to a mostly black clientele, has observed this dynamic in her
field. “I’ve had colleagues who were like, ‘Hey, I have a black client
and he’s open to any race’. I’m like ‘Oh, OK, great! I’ll send you a
couple of matches who fit what he’s looking for. Then they’ll come back
and say, ‘She’s too ethnic looking’.”
I know exactly what she means, but I ask anyway: “What would ‘too ethnic’ mean, in terms of look?”
“Dark skin. Someone who is probably brown to dark skin. Someone with
natural hair. Someone who is over the size of six,” she answers. “I
would bet $5,000 every single one of my black colleagues have had that
happen. Where they’ll come back and say, ‘Uh, well, he’s only looking
for someone who is very fair’; or, ‘He’s looking for someone who is
light-skinned’.”
Still, Wadley tells me, she hoped I’m not writing a “woe is me,
nobody wants dark-skinned girls” article. I wince hearing it, hoping for
the same, deep down. But this topic doesn’t lend itself to optimism.
‘It made me feel like I would never be wanted’
Writing this piece, a memory I had long forgotten resurfaces. At
university, on the line for the security check-in for dorms, I bumped
into a friend of my former roommate. I inquired about something someone
had said. Immediately, his face changed from joy to anger. “You’re too
dark to be talking to me like this, Dream,” he sneered. Hurt to the
point of rage, I bristled and walked away. We never had a conversation
again.
I aimlessly skim the app late one night, swiping left, right, right,
left. I’ve only made a few matches since downloading it the week before.
Then, I come across a profile. “I only date light-skinned women…” reads
his bio, even though his skin tone matches mine. I wasn’t going to
swipe right in the first place – he was not cute – but I still feel the
bristle of my sophomore year. I roll my eyes, and swipe to the next one.
I
would like to think I’ve grown up since that 19 year old who was
insulted at the gate of my dorm.
My dark skin is not something to be
ashamed of, even if past lovers made it clear they were ashamed to be
associated with me because of it. I’ve been all of it before – I’m
dating someone but there’s a secrecy to our relationship: hands that
only hold yours in private, a reluctance to present you to family and
friends, kisses that only meet your lips when no one else can see.
I hate that I’ve had to beg for legitimacy in my intimate
relationships. I hate that my friends have had to do so too. I want
love, but my self-esteem is too high a price to pay.
Sharlene and I met at a Kendrick Lamar concert during our freshman
year of college and we’ve stayed in contact ever since. Knowing she’s
shared similar sentiments about dating in the past, I get in touch,
hoping to round out my perspective on the matter. “I feel like
dark-skinned women were just the women that men had behind closed doors.
They weren’t trophy wives enough for you to show to the world. Somebody
wouldn’t want to show me off but, next thing you know, they’ve got
somebody lighter and they’re showing them off … It made me feel like I would never be wanted.”
Deflated, I talk to Elizabeth, my former sophomore-year roommate, who
is now in her third year of law school. I ask if a partner has said
anything rude to her because of her skin tone. She names a man I know,
to my dismay. “There was just a comment that he made one time. [He said]
‘I want a white family’.” She laughs: “It was just so weird to me
because you’re telling me you want a white family. I can’t give you
that! Like, why are you talking to me?”
“I want a white family.” The words stick with me for the rest of the
day, weighing me down like a bale of cotton. It brings tears to my eyes.
I wonder: are dark-skinned women just the placeholders until they meet
their desired match? Do all these men really just want white families?
A few nights into the app, another guy pops up on my screen – decent
looking and seemingly gainfully employed. I’m mildly interested. His
profile bio is just one line: “The darker the berry, the sweeter the
juice.”
My immediate thoughts warn me of a possible fetish. Dating
with dark skin often comes with a double edged sword: we are unwanted,
except by men who want to create an experience out of us, leaving our person hood out of the equation altogether. We become empty objects,
vehicles for pleasure, rather than multi-dimensional beings.
Hunter vocalizes this sentiment. “At the same time, there’s also a
kind of fetishization of darker skin. So sometimes you’ll hear people
say ‘I only like dark-skinned women’ or that ‘dark skin is sexy’ or
something like that,” she tells me. “Not that those things aren’t true
or good, but they also kind of objectifying or sexualizing in a way that
isn’t necessarily the solution to the discrimination. It’s an
inversion, basically.”
The bachelor on my screen shares my mahogany skin tone. But I’m wary
he, like other black men, may fall victim to this form of
objectification. I remember how Sharlene expressed her frustrations with
her beauty being seen as skin deep. “We can’t get just get a regular
compliment,” she laments. “I know that people think that calling me
chocolate all the time, or talking about ‘your skin is beautiful’ is a
compliment. But why can’t I just be beautiful?”
I hear what she and Dr Hunter are saying, but my choices are few. I
feel limited; I was made to feel this way. In the end, I swipe right. My
screen darkens, proclaiming a match has been made. We chat, but the
spark isn’t there.
But three weeks after joining the app, I finally hit a stride and
start having more fun. I’ve matched with someone who seems promising.
He’s smart, we work in the same industry, and our conversations online
have been pleasant. I ask him to meet, and he agrees.
We are meeting at a food hall; for me, it’s a short walk and a train
across town but feels like a world away. A slew of hopes run through me
on the way over. I hope I’ll be just as attracted to him in person as I
am online. I hope he won’t murder me.
I approach the hall, take a deep breath, and ready my fingers to pull the door open. “Here we go,” I whisper to myself.
1. Fuck the spin. We know nothing about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.
What we know is how Attorney General William Barr characterized the
report and its findings. Barr is a Republican sin eater, engorging
himself on a banquet of crimes and betrayals going back decades.
He has no moral or ethical standing here, and his legal standing is
based on how he was going to wolf down the slop trough of sins of the
Trump administration. Unless and until we see the actual report, the
actual evidence, the actual two goddamn years of work that was done and
that, apparently, Barr only needed less than two days digest and shit
out a summary letter, we know nothing.
2. But, hey, for shits and giggles, let's say take the cackling Russia naysayers' perspective and treat Barr's letter like
it's totally legit. Well, look at the second page, where Barr says
explicitly that Mueller showed that Russia tried to interfere in the
2016 election. I mean, call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but when I
read, "The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors
successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons
affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations,
and publicly disseminated those materials through various
intermediaries, including WikiLeaks," I think that's pretty fucking
serious and damning and deserves action from, oh, hell, let's say the
White House.
2a. Barr writes that "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S.
person or Trump campaign official or associate" conspired with Russians
to spread disinformation through social media. But when it comes to the
DNC hacks, he writes, " the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump
campaign, or anyone associated with it" conspired on them, leaving out
the more all-encompassing "any U.S. person." Which says to me that
someone in the U.S. sure as shit conspired.
2b. This part is entirely fucked up: apparently, there were "multiple
offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump
campaign." So, just to get this right, Russian operatives told the Trump
campaign, presumably Jared, Junior, and Manafort, "Hey, we're dicking
around on social media and, by the way, we've hacked the shit out of
Hillary's email. Wanna fuck?" And we know that Jared and/or Junior
winked about lifting sanctions while saying out loud, "Oh, no, we'd
never want that." And then they didn't go directly to the FBI and turn
everyone in who contacted them. That inaction gave tacit approval. Put
it this way: If President Hillary Clinton's campaign hadn't turned over
Russian offers of hacked Trump emails to the FBI, DC would be on fire
tonight as enraged Republicans demanded Pennsylvania Avenue run red with
the blood of her administration.
2c. And if this had been written about President Hillary Clinton: "while
this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it
also does not exonerate [her]," the only thing we'd be talking about is
how she wasn't exonerated. The GOP and the media wouldn't let her say
that she was exonerated. They wouldn't allow such an obvious,
demonstrable lie. But with Trump, well, fuck us all, it never matters
that he lies like the rest of us breathe.
2d. Frankly, Mueller's report could exonerate Trump on everything. It
could be everything that Republicans are spinning it to be. But I'm not
gonna buy anything one way or the other until we get to see the thing.
I'd be a credulous idiot to think any other way. Right now, without the
report, this is a cover-up. Of obstruction. Of the extent that our electoral system is at risk. Of what Trump's relationship with Russia actually is.
3. While Trump and his party of religious zealots, miserable racists, child molester enablers, and generally shitty humans are attacking
Democrats savagely, let's not leave out the role Trump played in making
the investigation into Russian meddling in the election all about him.
He saw it as tainting his "Greatest Victory in the History of Everything
Yeah You Heard Me Fuck You," so he sought to discredit the
investigation and the people doing it.
But here's the trouble I have. If you believe the Barr letter, you have
to believe that Russia did meddle in the election. It's right there. It
says so. Yet every time Trump has been given the opportunity to agree
with fucking everyone that such interference occurred, he has dismissed,
demurred, or denied it. He has suggested multiple times that it could
be the Chinese or the mythical 400-lb hacker. And his administration is
doing precious little to prevent that interference again. This is like
the climate change of espionage here: it happened. It's happening.
Everyone knows it's happening. But because a tiny group of tiny dicks
refuse to act, nothing will be done. And it'll just get worse while the
tiny dicks get jacked off on all of us.
So, at best, Trump has such a fragile ego that he fears anyone
questioning his election. Or he wants Russia to interfere. Or he's
utterly compromised. In other words, he sure as shit acts like he's
guilty and we're fucked either way.
4. Democrats did put too many eggs in Mueller's basket. And now they
should kick the investigations into high gear. Get some fuckin'
subpoenas going. Drag some motherfuckers before committees and put 'em
under oath. Get Trump's goddamn tax returns. Some emoluments clause,
motherfuckers. Some bribery.
Look, Trump is buried up to his neck in shit. Sure, it would be nice to
have backed up dump truck of manure and covered his orange deflated yoga
ball of a head. But we can also get our shovels and finish the job with
the shit that's already there.
5. Let's fuck shit up in 2020. I don't buy that concentration on Russia
has hurt Democrats. If anything, it has unified us and pissed us off.
Feel that rage. Embrace it. Use it to fuel you through November 2020
because, without some miracle or dark magic, we're not getting out of
the rest of this Trump term. Gird yer loins, motherfuckers. Gird 'em for
the long fight.
Let's talk about the continued blind allegiance to Donald Trump from
brainwashed Republicans concerning the Mueller Report. Even though no
one knows what is in it, Republicans are claiming it exonerates Donald
Trump. The Amerian people need the full report to be made public as well
as the underlying evidence!
According to new reports, swing voters in pivotal states like Wisconsin
are beginning to turn on Donald Trump after finally coming to the
realization that the man is a con artist and that he lies about
everything. This doesn’t automatically mean that Democrats are going to
win in the Midwest, but it does offer a window for Democrats to make
some serious progress.
Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains how
Democrats can get these swing voters over to their side, but it won’t be
easy.
What are your thoughts about Donald Trump's unresidential behavior and
uncalled for jabs at the late John McCain, wrapping a week of wild
tweeting and bizarre behavior?
resident Trump blasted George Conway, the husband of White House
counselor Kellyanne Conway, as a 'stone cold loser' on Wednesday who is
jealous of his wife's success.
George Conway, who questioned the president's mental fitness for office
this week, is a 'husband from hell,' Trump said in a morning tweet that
took the internal family feud to new heights.
Trump said he barely knows Conway, who has become well-known for his
tweets ripping apart the resident.
Conway once lived in Trump World
Tower in New York with his wife, who served on the condo's board."
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said Monday that he would not support the
Equality Act, which would expand and clarify federal protections for
LGBTQ people, without significant changes.
Manchin, the only Senate Democrat who is not supporting the legislation,
said he wants to provide more control to local officials. Rep. Dan
Lipinski (D-IL) is the only Democrat in the House who does not support
the current legislation.
'I strongly support equality for all people and do not tolerate
discrimination of any kind. No one should be afraid of losing their job
or losing their housing because of their sexual orientation,' Manchin
told the press. 'I am not convinced that the Equality Act as written
provides sufficient guidance to the local officials who will be
responsible for implementing it, particularly with respect to students
transitioning between genders in public schools.'"
"
Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian
Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian
Jeanine
Pirro, the Fox News Channel host and former prosecutor, was absent from
her usual slot in the network’s Saturday night prime-time lineup — and
her most powerful viewer was not happy about it.
Fox News bumped the show a week after it publicly condemned
Pirro’s on-air suggestion that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) did not
support the U.S. Constitution because she is Muslim and wears a hijab.
“Bring back @JudgeJeanine Pirro,” resident Trump tweeted Sunday morning.
Trump
accused Pirro’s critics of waging “all out campaigns” against Pirro and
fellow Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who was widely rebuked after
decade-old racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments resurfaced last
week. Both of their comments prompted some advertisers to boycott the shows.
“Stop working soooo hard on being politically correct, which will only bring you down,” Trump said in another tweet, before issuing a curiously dire warning to “Be strong & prosper, be weak & die!”
Democrats are doing that thing they always do, that same bullshit of
questioning every step, every word, every gesture to the point of
paralysis in some areas. In just the last few days, we've gotten a
report that some Democrats are feeling skittish
about opening up investigative whoop-ass on Ivanka Trump, the daughter
and fantasy lover of resident Donald Trump, because it might make
Daddy-kins angry. We've had the entirely unnecessary blow-up over Ilhan
Omar's poor choice of words when talking about issues related to Israel.
And now we've got Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declaring, "I’m not for impeachment...because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."
Welcome back to the same fuckin' pothole-filled road we've been down too many times.
The most important of those is Speaker Pelosi's pronouncement, which is
more definitive than she's ever been on the subject of impeachment with
Trump. For some of us, our stomachs turn and our bowels clench because
it echoes what she said
in 2006, after Democrats won back the House and she was about to become
speaker. "Impeachment is off the table" when it came to George W. Bush,
even though he was a goddamn war criminal, even though we desperately
wanted him punished.
In the course of her new interview with the Washington Post,
Pelosi agrees that this is the most divisive "political climate" since
she's been in Congress because "because of the person who is in the
White House and the enablers that the Republicans in Congress are to
him." She adds, "We have a very serious challenge to the Constitution of
the United States in the president’s unconstitutional assault on the
Constitution, on the first branch of government, the legislative
branch…This is very serious for our country." And, when asked if Trump
is fit to be president, she is very clear: "I don’t think he is. I mean,
ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I
don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States."
If the resident is assaulting the Constitution, dividing the nation,
and is unfit to even be president, then impeachment should be the most
important thing that the Congress can do. Fuck the politics. Fuck the
Senate. Fuck waiting for the Mueller report. You fucking do the
investigations in your committees, you write up the articles, and you
vote. You do it because, if you don't, then you're saying, "Yeah, he's a
criminal surrounded by criminals who is actually turning people in the
country violent, but, damn, the Republicans will just be so mean about
it." You do it because history and your goddamn oath of office demand
that you do it.
And don't talk to me about Bill Clinton's approval and the 1998 midterms
as being hugely affected by investigations and his impeachment. As I wrote
last year, that's a garbage argument. Clinton's approval was already
above 50%, heading to 60 after his reelection and his disapproval was
mostly in the 30s. Trump's numbers are the opposite. And the crimes
Clinton was accused of are just a Tuesday morning for Trump while every
other fucking tweet of Trump's is him looking us dead in the eye and
saying, "I did not have collusion relations with that country, Russia."
As for the idea that the Senate won't convict, well, shit, the House
right now is passing all these bills on voting rights, gun control, and
more that the Senate won't touch because Mitch McConnell is a total
cockmite and, you know, it's run by Republicans. That's not stopping the
House from voting on things so that Democrats can run on the
legislation that was stalled (and will have to be passed again in a new
Congress). Besides, the Senate can't just ignore the House on
impeachment. The Constitution requires that the Senate have a trial on
removing the president once the House impeaches (although you can bet
McConnell will try to say he doesn't have to). That trial won't be about
Trump's dick and whose mouth it was in, although it could be. It will
be about how, say, he's getting bribed by Saudi Arabia through his
family business.
While polls right now have impeachment far down the list of shit people
want the Democrats to do, the point is that the majority of Americans think Trump's
a fuckin' crook. They will get on board with taking this corrupt
asshole down. Jesus, kicking out a rich prick? That's a fuckin' movie
ending.
Look, you wanna excite the base for an election? You wanna get people to
rally around you? You wanna bring the left and moderates in the party
together? Then don't fucking do what President Obama did with the GOP
after 2008 and let the bastards slide. Don't let them control the
narrative. Go after every single one of Trump's criminal children (so
far, Tiffany and Barron seem to have blissfully stayed out of the muck).
Anal probe these fuckers until you're up to your elbows in their
colons.
And don't take the goddamn bait every time Republicans start screaming
about something on Fox "news." It's been days since Trump called the
entire Democratic Party "anti-Jewish." And not a single Republican
member of Congress has condemned him saying that. So, really, who the
fuck cares if the GOP is upset about some insult? If you're a Democrat
saying that impeachment should be off the table because it might piss
off Republicans, then you're just doing their jobs for them.
Pelosi could have played it coy and said, "Well, we'll have to see where
things lead." Or she could have said, "The nation is worth it even if
he isn't." She could have said said that the Founders of our nation put
impeachment in the Constitution for a reason, for people like Trump. The
groundswell of support from Democrats (and a good number of
independents) would overwhelm the outrage, and the fence sitters and the
nervous Democrats would have gladly surfed on that wave.
In the most generous reading of her words, Pelosi knows something or has
something up her sleeve. But I don't think so. I think that, for how
great she can be on things like wall funding and other issues, this is
one of those times that she acts like the sadly typical, abashed
Democrat, afraid to use power to its fullest.
.jpg)
#/media/File:Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver,_1863,_retouched.jpg){kind=link}