The GOP Has An Official Beverage Now: Corona Beer

Early in February, I wrote about why I had decided to cancel a trip to the beautiful Dordogne region of France. Yesterday, French President Emmanuel Macron locked down the country "for 15 days" (it will likely me much longer). Even the Islamic State has issued a travel ban now! Yesterday, Bob Costa reported for the Washington Post that GOP nut case Devin Nunes said on Fox that "it’s a great time to just go out, go to a local restaurant." Many Trump enablers and allies see the coronavirus as hyped up bullshit "being created to destabilize the country and destroy" Trump, in the words of crackpot Bernard Kerik. Costa wrote that "Inside the Republican Party and the conservative movement that Trump commands, there is now a deep divide as the nation confronts the coronavirus. For weeks, many on the right, including Trump, minimized the virus, if they considered it at all. Even in recent days, as much of the world shuts down to try to stop its spread, some Republicans mocked what they saw as a media-generated frenzy. Their reaction reflected how the American right has evolved under Trump, moving from a bloc of small-government advocates to a grievance coalition highly skeptical of government, science, the news and federal warnings."

Although several states are moving slowly, glacially-- even grudgingly-- towards lockdown, Trump is way too much of a political coward to do any such thing nationally. His states-- Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Idaho, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Wyoming, the Dakotas-- aren't concerned yet. People in Trump-Country are still clinging to his original stance, namely that the pandemic is a "hoax" cooked up by Trump's political enemies to deprive him of a second term. These aren't all states that were part of the Confederacy. Several of them are way up near Canada, likely the reason Canadad shut down its borders with the U.S. this week. Amtrak trains that normally operate from New York and Seattle into Canada ceased service as of yesterday. At least the Kentucky Derby was smart enough to move the event from the first Saturday in May to September 5-- far more realistic than the announcements of places (like schools, museums, concert venues, etc) closing for weeks or a month or two.

Last week I was fascinated to see a couple of morons in my local supermarket lugging 3 cases of Corona beer through the checkout. Did you know that Corona beer sales are up 5%? I wonder if it's only among Republicans.

Americans not drinking Corona beer because of the coronavirus made headlines recently. It was fodder for talk-show hosts about the collective American intellect (or lack of). Constellation Brands, the company that markets Corona beer in the U.S., shot back immediately, pointing out Corona beer sales rose 5% over the four-week period ending February 16.

Americans, it seems, aren’t as dumb as the Twitterverse made us seem. But the episode still raises the question: If 38% of Americans say they wouldn’t buy Corona beer “under any circumstances,” how are sales up 5% in the U.S.?

...The survey made three claims. First, “38% of Americans wouldn’t buy Corona under any circumstances now.” Next, “Among those who said they usually drink Corona, only 4% said they would stop drinking Corona, but 14% said they wouldn’t order Corona in a public venue.” Finally, “16% of beer-drinking Americans were confused about whether Corona beer is related to the coronavirus.”

But for Republicans flaunting Corona beer seems to have become "a thing." Seattle Times reporter Jim Brunner wrote over the weekend that right-wing lunatic Tim Eyman, a candidate for governor of Washington, "spent Saturday rooting for a political rally of 250+ people to 'stick our finger in the eye of Jay Inslee.' In an email blast to supporters, Eyman flouted public health restrictions and advice on slowing the spread of coronavirus, saying '251 is the # of patriots I hope will join me @ Oak Harbor today. I’m bringing a 6-pack of Corona!'" Only "around 60" pathetic death-cult Republicans showed up.

Eyman said he wanted to provoke a debate about government authority in a time of crisis. “I am very concerned that during situations like this or 9/11 or other fear-intensive events that the government infringes on basic constitutional rights without sufficient questioning,” he said in a text message, adding the media was failing to adequately challenge such restrictions.

Eyman, aside from refusing to obey directives about social distancing (i.e., spreading the plague), was recently found guilty of concealing nearly $800,000 in political contributions and of stealing a chair from an Office Depot. He may not have gotten the message yet, by Trump-- and Fox-- have suddenly decided to switch the COVID-19 storyline. Trump realizes that calling it a "hoax" is politically detrimental. Looky:

Short version: a new poll by Marist shows that only 34% of independent voters believe what Trump has to say about the pandemic. That could be fatal for his reelection chances. (Even 21% of self-described Republicans say they can't trust what he says about COVID-19.) Only 45% of registered voters say Trump is handling the coronavirus outbreak well-- a number that big because 85% of Republicans say so, as opposed to just 40% of independent voters. Which demographics think Trump is fucking up worst?

• Democrats- 83%
• non-whites- 61%
• White women college grads- 60%
• College graduates- 58%
• white college grads- 56%
• 18-38 year olds- 55%

And so far only hundreds of Americans have died from it. Soon it will be thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands and... maybe more. And that will include people in Trump states and Trump counties who are flaunting social distancing recommendations... and having Corona beer parties.

Yesterday, AP reported on the Trumpist about-face on COVID-19, noting that instead of raving about a hoax, he sounded downright somber and is now warning about "pain to come," calling on the country to come together and deferring "to the nation’s public health experts while at least momentarily putting aside petty squabbling." A lunatic like Eyman may be protesting Governor Inslee's half-assed decree than no more than 250 people gather, but on Monday Trump said no more than 10!

After weeks of trying to play down the risk posed by the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump struck a new, more urgent tone on Monday as he delivered a sobering message to Americans grappling with a new reality that will dramatically alter their lives for months to come.

Gone-- at least for now-- were Trump’s “do as I say, not as I do” handshakes that had continued even after health experts admonished people to avoid contact and practice social distancing. Also gone was the rosy talk aimed, in part, at propping up reeling financial markets.

The shift was informed in part by a growing realization within the West Wing that the coronavirus crisis is an existential threat to Trump’s presidency, endangering his reelection and his legacy. Trump has told advisers that he now believes the virus will be a significant general election issue and he took note of the clear-eyed, somber tone used by his likely general election foe, Joe Biden, in Sunday’s Democratic debate.

With reports from Italy growing grimmer, U.S. cases surging and America’s economy in shock, Trump has also received a series of alarming briefings in recent days that have included dire projections about how many Americans could be infected if drastic action isn’t taken.

He also has watched the dramatic escalation of precautions within the White House complex, where officials are now screening everyone who enters the building after Trump unknowingly interacted with at least three people who have since tested positive for the virus. Already, both his press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, and his outgoing acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, are isolating themselves at home after coming into direct or indirect contact with those who have COVID-19.

...For all of that, though, Trump was still Trump. He said he would award himself a 10-out-of-10 rating. And on Twitter, he was still needling a longtime political foe, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has called for a more assertive federal response.

As recently as Saturday, Trump had said, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the country had “tremendous control” of the virus, even as cases soared, local governments were shutting down schools, and doctors were warning of an impending health catastrophe. He reframed that comment Monday, saying that he’d been referring to his government’s handling of the crisis and not the virus itself.

“It’s not under control for any place in the world,” he acknowledged.

Trump for weeks had taken his upbeat cues from a network of outside advisers who told him the media and Democrats were hyping the threat. But he has also heard from allies who have urged him to bolster his response and change his tone, including some Republicans on Capitol Hill who feared they had been personally exposed to the virus.

Jared Kushner, the president’s influential son-in-law and senior adviser, who has recently taken a more active role in the administration’s response, has privately compared the virus to a “war” that could imperil the nation’s economy and population, according to two White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private conversations. The pandemic’s impact could rival that of World War II, he has said, requiring a national effort.

...Trump had hoped the markets would rise again Monday after the Federal Reserve’s announcement the previous day that it would slash interest rates, and he was rattled when they collapsed instead. Hoping to turn the tide, he told aides he wanted to speak at Monday’s 3:30 p.m. press briefing-- the same late afternoon time slot as Friday’s Rose Garden news conference.

But this time, instead of a spike in the market, the Dow Jones continued to plummet as he spoke, dipped even further after the president admitted, for the first time, that the nation may be heading for a recession.

While Trump’s changes in tones are often fleeting, White House officials and allies saw Monday’s more measured approach as evidence the president was coming to grips with the magnitude of the challenges ahead for the nation and his presidency.

Americans-- many struggling to work from home while juggling childcare, or facing job losses-- needed to hear directly from their commander in chief exactly what they are in for, said Trump’s former communication strategist Jason Miller.

“It’s important for people to hear from him, especially the message that we are going to get through this together,” Miller said.

Still, few expected Trump’s more measured approach to last or to erase past missteps.

Said Princeton presidential historian Julian Zelizer: “I’m not sure a change in tone makes up for a kind of complete lack of leadership that the country has seen in the first few weeks of this crisis.”

Did Google Just Bribe Devin Nunes? Business As Usual For Google And Nunes

California’s 22nd congressional district is one of the dwindling 7 still left in Republican hands-- and likely one of the next to fall. The relatively compact Central Valley district, starts up in the northern and eastern parts of the city of Fresno, includes Clovis, Reedley, Dinuba, Visalia, Exeter, Lindsay and Tulare. The district is primarily rural and includes parts of two counties, Fresno and Tulare. The PVI is R+8, the least red of the districts still held by a Republican in the state. There are only 3 California congressional districts with Republican PVIs held by Democrats-- CA-45 (R+3, Katie Porter), CA-48 (R+4, Harley Rouda) and CA-49 (R+1, Mike Levin).

By the numbers, it’s nearly impossible for a Democrat to win an R+8 district. There are just too many Republican voters and too few Democrats. CA-22, however could break the mold because of the controversial nature of the incumbent, crackpot and Trump patsy Devin Nunes. The district gave Obama (both times) and Hillary around 42% of its vote, but McCain took 55%, Romney got 56.6% but Trump just 52.1%. It’s not especially popular in the district.

Last cycle, the DCCC couldn’t have found a worse candidate-- a worthless, anti-charismatic conservative who is barely a Democrat, Andrew Janz, someone, had he won, may have joined Jeff Van Drew in jumping ship-- yes, another DCCC pile of garbage. The reasons he got any votes at all was:

• 2018’s anti-red wave
• The insane pro-Putin incumbent
• an obscene $9,064,633, entirely raised against Nunes

The Central Valley has been largely ignored by a Democratic Party controlled by coastal elites, both state-wise and nationally. Hispanics have not been registered and political organizing has been minimal and decidedly not progressive. The area needs a lot of help, the kind of work Kim Williams is doing in the blue 16th district, a Blue Dog stronghold where voters are just becoming aware of what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican even is. The DCCC found themselves a clone of Janz for 2020-- actually Janz recommended him-- Phil Arballo, a guy who is never going to beat Nunes unless someone finds a hi-def video of Nunes raping that cow he sued. So far this cycle Nunes has raised $5,678,450. The 3 Democrats taking him on are lucky to have raised a tenth of that combined:

Phil Arballo (DCCC conservative)- $380,762
Bobby Bliatout (moderate liberal)- $204,599
Dary Rezvani (progressive)- $76,886

Arballo is running an identity politics campaign on Republican-lite platform that is word-for-word all the pablum the DCCC feeds it’s dumb-bell candidates who can’t write their own pablum. Bobby Bliatout’s isn’t as bad, but isn’t that much better either-- just garden variety Democrat. Day Rezvani’s priorities page is the only one that could actually generate any of the kind of enthusiasm needed to win this kind of district by inspiring young people and non-voters.

Monday morning, Popular Information, Judd Legum’s popular newsletter, published a piece called Google’s Holiday Gift To Devin Nunes, about the pernicious impact of how corporations buy American politicians. “In November,” wrote Legum, “Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was in the spotlight— the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, which was leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. He used his star turn to push "fantastical conspiracy theories" about Democrats. Nunes falsely accused Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) of trying to obtain nude photos of Trump. He promoted the discredited notion, advanced by Trump but rejected by the intelligence community, that Ukraine took significant steps to meddle in the 2016 election. The debunked contention is part of a broader Russian propaganda effort to absolve itself from hacking the DNC servers by pinning the blame on Ukraine. Nunes was warned during the hearings by Fiona Hill, a former member of the National Security Council, that he was legitimizing a Russian disinformation campaign. ‘I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine-- not Russia-- attacked us in 2016,’ Hill said. ‘In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.’ Nunes was undeterred.”

Nunes' antics during the impeachment hearings capped a year when he filed six defamation lawsuits, seeking hundreds of millions in damages from Twitter, a GOP political operative, media companies, a retired farmer, and a fictional cow. The suits were all filed by an attorney, Steven Biss, whose law license was suspended twice by the state of Virginia.

In response, Google quietly rewarded Nunes' behavior with a check for $5000 to help him get reelected. The donation was revealed in a little-noticed FEC report that was filed on December 20.

Google says its "mission is to make sure that information serves everyone." But it is supporting a Congressman who has emerged as one of the most powerful sources of disinformation in the country.

It is a vivid example of a much broader problem that Popular Information has documented extensively. There is a yawning gap between the publicly stated values of powerful corporations and their political activities. A paper published by Harvard Business School (HBS) this month concludes that corporations have "funded, perpetuated, and profited from political dysfunction."

Corporations have a massive influence on the electoral process. In 2018, corporate spending on federal elections was around $2.8 billion. At the state level, "public companies were the largest source of funding supporting partisan groups in state-level races, such as the Republican Governors Association and its Democratic counterpart."

One chapter of the Harvard paper surveyed HBS alumni and found a shocking level of ignorance about the influence of the corporations they work for on the political system.

When asked whether their own companies’ election spending distorted the democratic process, just 4% said yes, while 30% disagreed (27% strongly disagreed). A remarkable 61% responded to this question with “Not applicable” or “Don’t know.” 

The authors said the responses from HBS alumni "suggests either that many business leaders have little knowledge of their companies’ political involvement...or that alumni are unwilling or uncomfortable disclosing their companies’ involvement in elections."

But when asked about corporate involvement in politics generally, most HBS alumni agree that corporate political donations are deleterious and warp democracy.

[A]mong HBS alumni who were asked not about their own company but about business as a whole, 60% responded that companies should not have corporate PACs as a vehicle for employees to contribute to candidates the company supports. And 71% of these same alumni believed that the overall business community’s election spending distorted the democratic process.

In other words, HBS alumni believe that corporate political donations are a big problem-- but the company they work for is an exception.

Political donations are part of a corporate "playbook" of political activity that includes lobbying, spending on ballot initiatives, and hiring former government officials. Overall, HBS alumni view their own company's political involvement as largely positive while viewing the activities of all the other companies' political involvement negatively.

Notably, 62% of HBS alumni surveyed say that the business community overall "worsens the political system by advancing policies benefiting special interests," but just 21% are willing to say the same thing about their company.

While corporate influence campaigns are effectively securing tactical political victories that increase businesses' immediate bottom line, the Harvard study suggests that this strategy is backfiring over the long run. 

Based on our research, we believe that much of today’s business involvement in politics may actually be working against business’s longer-term interests. It is not enhancing our nation’s productivity and competitiveness, failing to put business’s weight behind sound public policies to enhance the U.S. business environment, advance shared prosperity among citizens, and improve the communities on which business depends.

This makes sense. Ingratiating yourself with people like Devin Nunes, for example, may help you preserve a valuable tax loophole for another year. After all, he has a vote. It's unlikely, however, that Nunes and his ilk will have any interest in creating a functional social, economic and regulatory environment.

Toward a new meaning of corporate responsibility

Nearly all corporations seek a positive public image, including demonstrating a commitment to creating social good. Up to this point, these efforts have "been in areas like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving employee health, and, more recently, paying a living wage and improving training and career development for lower-income workers." Politics has been separate. There is little effort to harmonize corporate political activities with commitments to public responsibility.

The Harvard study found a surprising willingness among HBS alumni to change the corporate political playbook. A strong majority of HBS alumni believe corporations should end political donations, spend less on lobbying, and stop trying to buy outcomes in ballot initiatives.

This circles back to a dynamic discussed earlier: most corporate employees are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) their own company's complicity in the problem. How many Google employees, for example, know their company gave Devin Nunes $5000 last month? Without that knowledge, an abstract willingness to change corporate practices overall will not translate to internal pressure for things to change at a particular company.

Knowledge is only part of the problem. Corporate insiders are often reluctant to speak out, believing that doing so could cost them their jobs.

The author of the Harvard study is proposing a "set of voluntary standards, which we believe every company should adopt when dealing with politics and government." But with so much money at stake, most corporations will not reorient their political activities without a fight. Change, if it does occur, will need to be a product of external and internal pressure.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

In case you missed it, subpoenaed telephone records have revealed that the Republican Party had one of its House Intelligence Committee members, its highest ranking one, in regular contact with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani (and his associate Lev Parnas) in a set up that was presumably feeding the Trump team with whatever information the committee was uncovering or investigating. The phone calls in question occurred at the same time withholding Congressionally-approved money for Ukraine's security was being discussed in the White House. Coincidence? The list of calls also reveal a number frequently associated with the OMB (Office of Management and Budget. Mick Mulvaney is the head of OMB and also serves as Trump's Chief Of Staff. Another coincidence? Context matters. We already knew of at least one instance of Nunes making a late night physical appearance at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In other words, to use spy parlance, the White House had a mole on the House Intelligence Committee. The records confirm that that mole is named Devin Nunes, the top ranking Republican member of the Intelligence Committee. The Russian GRU (formerly the KGB) could not have done a better job, and "maybe" they did.

Trump's Russian pals benefit from any lack of security Ukraine has to endure. Ukraine is at war with Russia which already has its soldiers on Ukrainian soil. It's worth noting what Trump has already done in abandoning the Kurds and giving his pal Putin a better foothold in Syria. No matter how much the Republican Party tries to cloud the picture, the call list shows that Nunes was much closer, through Giuliani and Parnas, to the Ukraine scandal than he and his party let on.

Suppose a gang of thieves had stolen the contents of a Brinks truck. Now suppose that the police detective team investigating the case had a corrupt detective in their midst who was feeding the thieves with daily updates of information as to what the cops knew and how close they were getting to cracking the case wide open. The gang of thieves would know exactly what incriminating evidence to try to hide or obfuscate, what cover stories to create, and when to change hideouts. That's what the Republican Party, in this case, seems to have done in a nutshell. If I was in charge, I would be wanting to see if any provisions of the RICO act can be applied to any or all of this just like they would with any other mob family. In a sane Washington world, it would be.

Impeachment Moves Down The Road From Intel To Judiciary

Last night the House Intelligence Committee voted to officially issue the The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report to the public. All 13 Democrats on the Committee voted to issue it and all 9 Republicans voted against issuing it. In a statement, Adam Schiff and the chairs of the Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees, Eliot Engel and Carolyn Maloney, said that "The evidence is clear that President Trump used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election. These investigations were designed to benefit his 2020 presidential reelection campaign. The evidence is also clear that President Trump conditioned official acts on the public announcement of these investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary. Finally, the evidence is clear that after his scheme to secure foreign help in his reelection was uncovered, President Trump engaged in categorical and unprecedented obstruction in order to cover-up his misconduct."

Schiff and his colleagues also charged that Trump's "actions have damaged our national security, undermined the integrity of the next election, and violated his oath of office. They have also challenged the very core of our Constitutional system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law. It will be up to the Congress to determine whether these acts rise to the level of an impeachable offense, whether the President shall be held to account, and whether we as a nation are committed to the rule of law-- or, instead, whether a president who uses the power of his office to coerce foreign interference in a U.S. election is something that Americans must simply 'get over.' With the release of our report, the American people can review for themselves the evidence detailing President Trump’s betrayal of the public trust."

The Intel Committee's inquiry uncovered a months-long effort by Trump "to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election. "Trump's scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations:  a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.You can read the whole report here. Below are excerpts from the executive summary:

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting. Although President Trump’s scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to “get over it.”

President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today. However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country:  impeachment. Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States. As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Committees released the following findings:

I.               Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States-- acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government-- solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

II.             In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump-- directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government-- sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

III.           As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested from the President of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into (1) the President’s political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden, and (2) a baseless theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine-- rather than Russia-- interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. These investigations were intended to harm a potential political opponent of President Trump and benefit the President’s domestic political standing.

IV.           President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification.The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.

V.             President Trump used the power of the Office of the President and exercised his authority over the Executive Branch, including his control of the instruments of the federal government, to apply increasing pressure on the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically-motivated investigations desired by President Trump.  Specifically, to advance and promote his scheme, the President withheld official acts of value to Ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by Ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests:   

A- President Trump-- acting through agents within and outside the U.S. government-- conditioned a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine desperately sought to demonstrate continued United States support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, on Ukraine publicly announcing the investigations that President Trump believed would aid his reelection campaign.

B- To increase leverage over the President of Ukraine, President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he had suspended to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine’s public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought.

C- President Trump’s closest subordinates and advisors within the Executive Branch, including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy J. Richard Perry, and other senior White House and Executive Branch officials had knowledge of, in some cases facilitated and furthered the President’s scheme, and withheld information about the scheme from the Congress and the American public.   

VI.           In directing and orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests, President Trump did not implement, promote, or advance U.S. anti-corruption policies. In fact, the President sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically-motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication that the U.S. government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy in that country and around the world.  In so doing, the President undermined U.S. policy supporting anti-corruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine, and undermined U.S. national security.

VII.         By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.

VIII.       Faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the President will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain.

IX.           Using the power of the Office of the President, and exercising his authority over the Executive Branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry by:

A- refusing to produce to the impeachment inquiry’s investigating Committees information and records in the possession of the White House, in defiance of a lawful subpoena;

B- directing Executive Branch agencies to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of all documents and records from the investigating Committees;

C- directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, including in defiance of lawful subpoenas for testimony; and

D- intimidating, threatening, and tampering with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry in an effort to prevent, delay, or influence the testimony of those witnesses.

In so doing, and despite the fact that the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the President sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct, and the right to deny any and all information to the Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities.

Crooked Central Valley Congressman Devin Nunes, who thinks he's suing CNN for $435 million over false and defamatory reporting, is in big trouble himself. Abigail Tracy of Vanity Fair wrote that "When it was first reported that Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas was willing to testify to Congress that Devin Nunes had actively participated in the effort to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and smear an American diplomat, the California Republican dismissed the stories as 'fake' and 'demonstrably false.' But he didn’t deny the allegations themselves. Instead, he dodged. 'I really want to answer all of these questions,' Nunes, who is, remarkably, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News host Maria Baritomo, before decidedly not answering questions about his involvement in the Ukraine scandal engulfing Donald Trump and the White House. And now, it appears Nunes has even more explaining to do... The [phone] records-- which AT&T provided to the committee-- suggest Nunes was actively involved in the smear campaign against Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. As the effort to oust the veteran diplomat gained momentum after John Solomon, a former opinion contributor to The Hill, published a series of unfounded allegations about her and the Bidens, Nunes was in contact with a number of key figures. The phone records, according to the report, reveal five phone calls on April 10 between Nunes and Giuliani, who was actively promoting Solomon’s articles on social media and in conservative media. Nunes also had multiple contacts with Parnas, who like Giuliani was pushing the false allegations against Yovanovitch and the Bidens. Nunes and Parnas exchanged four calls ranging in duration from zero seconds to almost nine minutes on April 12. That same day, Parnas was also in touch with Solomon, Giuliani, and Victoria Toensing, a frequent Fox News guest. (On the same day, former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko hired Toensing as his lawyer.) Additionally on April 12, Giuliani was in contact with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for President Trump."

Like everyone looking at the report, Tracy believes that "Given Tuesday’s revelations, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Nunes can dodge another ethics investigation, especially considering that some Democrats had floated the idea even before the report was published. 'It is deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,' Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday."





UPDATE: GUILTY

This morning constitutional scholars called by Democrats testified that Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine rises to the level of impeachment. Meanwhile, in London, Señor Trumpanzee, after a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, told reporters that "The word 'impeachment' is a dirty word that should only be used in special occasions." He claims "everybody" is saying the Intel Committee report is "a joke." But at the NATO summit, Trump is a joke, being laughed at my all his peers-- and so much so that President Snowflake announced he's leaving early and that Justin Trudeau is "two-faced" for making fun of him.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

By Noah

So, Devin Nunes thinks he can dress like a gangster and be dressed to impress. But, all his Capone outfit did was point up how pathetic he is; not comical, not at all, but just a hideous goon who offers a picture of himself that demands darts.

Imagine how damn pathetically stupid you have to be that you come to think you can dress like a mobster and promote Putin's conspiracy propaganda and be wholeheartedly accepted into Putin's Russian mob, even with an entree from Donald Trump. No Devin, you may think you're auditioning. You probably even see yourself as a future Russian Ambassador to the United States, at least an honorary one. But, Devin, wake up, if you have the brain cells. To Putin, you are just a coffee boy, for real. And so is Donald Trump.

Expect Trump To Be Busy Pardoning A Lot Of People In His Last Month In The White House

Josh Dawsey, Carol Leonnig and Tom Hamburger reported in the Washington Post about more trouble for Trump. They wrote that a confidential White House review of Trump’s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal-- clearly part of a cover-up. "The research by the White House Counsel’s Office," they wrote, "which was triggered by a congressional impeachment inquiry announced in September, includes early August email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after President Trump had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the nearly $400 million in security assistance."

Meanwhile, Schiff told Jake Tapper on State of the Union that the House Intel Committee "will press ahead with its impeachment report even though key witnesses have not testified, in the latest signal that Democrats are moving swiftly in their probe of President Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine... Schiff said the evidence against Trump is 'already overwhelming.'" Felicia Sonmez and Elise Viebeck reported that "Democrats are seeking to prove Trump leveraged military assistance and an Oval Office meeting in exchange for investigations of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden and a debunked theory concerning purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Several key figures, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton and Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, have declined to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.

A federal judge is expected to rule Monday on whether former White House counsel Donald McGahn must testify under subpoena.

Some have argued that Democrats should litigate the matter in the courts to force more witnesses to testify. But Schiff said Sunday that time is of the essence and that Democrats will continue to investigate even after they have submitted their report to the House Judiciary Committee.

“We’re going to continue our investigation… The investigation isn’t going to end,” he said, adding that “we may have other depositions and hearings to do.”

He took particular aim at Bolton, arguing that the former national security adviser will have to explain why he chose to give his account of events “in a book” rather than show the “courage” that Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council Russia adviser, did in testifying before lawmakers last week.

Schiff declined to say how long it might take impeachment investigators to finish their report, saying only that “we’ll take the time that’s necessary.”

Trump, meanwhile, continued to take aim at Democrats, saying in a tweet on Sunday that they “are not getting important legislation done” because of the impeachment inquiry.

“USMCA, National Defense Authorization Act, Gun Safety, Prescription Drug Prices, & Infrastructure are dead in the water because of the Dems!” Trump said, referring to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and other matters.

In another tweet, Trump claimed that public opinion has “turned very strongly against Impeachment, especially in swing states,” though national polls have shown that public sentiment about impeachment has remained stable.

According to an NPR-PBS-Marist poll, 49 percent of respondents supported removing Trump from office in mid-November. This is similar to the 48 percent who said the same in early October in another NPR-PBS-Marist poll.

Administration officials and other Republicans on Sunday continued to defend Trump and sought to keep the focus on Biden, who is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway argued that there was no quid pro quo because Ukraine eventually received its military aid and Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in late September.

Conway also dismissed the notion that last week’s testimony strengthened Democrats’ hand, claiming that she sees swing-district Democrats “wringing their hands” over what to do.

“I think defense will go on offense if there is a Senate trial, and we’ll be able to call witnesses, we’ll be able to challenge their witnesses, produce other evidence,” Conway said on CBS News’s Face the Nation.

She added, “We simply can’t impeach and remove a democratically elected president from office because they didn’t beat him in 2016, they haven’t a clue how to beat him in 2020, [and] they don’t much like him.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was “pretty sure that every single one” of Conway’s assertions was “inaccurate,” noting that Ukraine received its military aid and Trump met with Zelensky in New York only after a whistleblower made the complaint that triggered the impeachment inquiry.

“I understand that the White House is all about making facts slippery,” Himes said. “When the jig was up, yes, then the aid was released, once they [Trump and his allies] were caught.”

Himes also challenged Conway’s claim that Democrats in Congress were losing faith in the allegations.

“I don’t think any Democrat in the Congress looked at what happened over the last two weeks and said, ‘Gosh, there’s nothing there,’ ” Himes said, adding: “Every single day, every single piece of testimony brought up new information.”

Calling Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine a “red herring,” Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) said it’s important for lawmakers to understand why Trump asked Zelensky for an investigation of the Bidens and what Hunter Biden did as a board member for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.

Kennedy said it was unfair that Trump was unable to call witnesses or offer a direct rebuttal during the initial proceedings of the impeachment inquiry.

“I think Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s judicial philosophy from the beginning has been ‘guilty,’ ” Kennedy said on Fox News Sunday. But he said that if there is a Senate trial, he does not think the allegations will be “summarily dismissed.”

“I’m in favor of doing it in accordance with due process and [letting] everybody offer whatever they want to in terms of evidence,” Kennedy said, even if that “takes a long time.”

The Louisiana Republican said he was unsure whether Russia or Ukraine hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers during the 2016 election despite the intelligence community’s consensus that Russia was to blame. His comment drew a strong response from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who said, “It was Russia, and as a country, we have to make sure that we absolutely acknowledge it was Russia [and] condemn Russia for it.”

“It actually plays into Russia’s hands if they [Republicans] have this equivalence with Ukraine where we’re saying, ‘Well, maybe we don’t know which one it was,’ ” Swalwell said.

In a separate interview on NBC News’s Meet the Press, Schiff said there is no longer a need for testimony from the anonymous whistleblower-- though Schiff had previously pledged that his panel would hear from the individual.

“We don’t need the whistleblower’s secondhand evidence anymore,” he said. “It would only serve to endanger this person and to gratify the president’s desire for retribution, and that is not a good enough reason to bring in the whistleblower.”

Schiff also pushed back against the argument that he himself should be called to testify in the Senate trial, noting, “I’m not a fact witness.”

“All I can relate is what the witnesses said in deposition and in the open hearings,” he said, arguing that calling him to testify would show a lack of seriousness by Senate Republicans.

On CNN, Schiff also declined to say whether he believes the House Ethics Committee should investigate Rep. Devin Nunes (CA), the top Republican on the intelligence panel, over allegations that he met with an ex-Ukranian official to obtain information about Joe Biden and his son.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) said Saturday that it was “quite likely” that Nunes would face a House inquiry. But Schiff said Sunday that he did not want to weigh in on the matter.

“I don’t want to comment on what the Ethics Committee should do, particularly vis-a-vis the ranking member of my committee,” Schiff said.

There seems to be an unending flow of impeachment-related witnesses and information the Democrats could still tap. Sunday night, for example, CNBC reported that Lev-- of Lev and Igor-- "wants to testify to Congress that aides to Rep. Devin Nunes called off a trip to Ukraine this year when they realized they would be required to notify Democratic committee chairman Adam Schiff. The purpose of the trip was to interview two Ukrainian prosecutors who claim to have evidence that could help President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, according to Parnas’ lawyer. Parnas also alleges that Nunes, a leading Trump ally, himself traveled to Vienna last year to interview a potential source of political dirt on Joe Biden.

And Schiff is already in possession of video and audio tapes and photographs from Lev that are supposedly damning to Giuliani, Nunes and possibly Trump himself. "Some of the material sought by congressional investigators is already in possession of federal investigators within the Southern District of New York and thus held up from being turned over, according to sources familiar with the matter."

This morning, Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Bernstein, reminded his readers that conservative Republicans stuck with President Richard Nixon in 1974… right up until they didn’t. In other words: it ain't over 'til it's over. "Trump’s seemingly unanimous support right now is similar to the backing that Nixon had even as his original cover-up collapsed in early 1973; as the Senate Watergate committee hearings dominated that summer; as the Saturday Night Massacre unfolded in October; and as the House judiciary committee debated and voted on specific articles of impeachment in 1974. And then: The smoking gun tape came out and it all collapsed immediately. Even Nixon’s strongest supporter on the judiciary committee, the Jim Jordan of the day, who had just vigorously defended the president during televised deliberations, flipped and said he’d vote to impeach on the House floor."

Hannity & Friends Raise The Flag by Nancy Ohanian

You don't go to prison for hackery, of which Nunes is clearly guilty, but Nunes has gone much further than that. This morning, Charlie Sykes wrote that "In the real world, Nunes’ behavior has become so openly outlandish it's drawing fire from former colleagues. Even among the antics of Jordan and Stefanik on the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes stands out. As the hearings wrapped up, former Republican congressman and current (long-shot) presidential candidate Joe Walsh tweeted: 'One takeaway for what it’s worth: @DevinNunes is a stupid, partisan hack.' Perhaps, but Walsh’s critique seems incomplete. It is true that Nunes will never be confused with Abraham Lincoln in either intellect or statesmanship. It also is worth remembering that he is the guy suing a Twitter account called “Devin Nunes' Cow,” for $250 million for (among other things) calling him a 'treasonous cowpoke,' and tweeting that: 'Devin’s boots are full of manure. He’s udder-ly worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison.'"

Walsh is also right that Nunes is, like so many of his colleagues, a political hack. But he’s more than that. Devin Nunes has redefined hackery in the age of Trump.

Old-fashioned hackery generally consisted of loyalty and a willingness to take one for the party, because hacks were concerned with self-preservation. But the thing about this form of hackery is that there were limits-- a point beyond which even the most devoted hack would not go. (See: Watergate.)

So how to explain Nunes and his colleagues?

It is one thing to defend their party’s president against his partisan foes. This is hardly unprecedented. But the innovation of Trumpian hackery is the demand that hacks set their intellect, character and political future on fire.

Nunes is the very model of this new hackery. He is not merely Trump’s defender, he has become his doppelgänger and co-conspirator, willing to peddle discredited propaganda likely cooked up by Russian military intelligence if Trump demands it.

There are two possibilities here: Nunes knows that he is cynically using Trump-friendly talking points because they play well on Fox News, or he actually believes this fetid mass of falsehoods because, as Slate’s Will Saletan told me, “he’s been using his own product.” It’s not clear which is worse, but the question goes to the essence of the new hackery.

I have a strong feeling that a judge and jury will be deciding before this is all over.

The Third Stooge: Devin Nunes

Devin Nunes has been one of Trump's most consistent defenders, co-conspirators and enablers in Congress. As Mark Sumner pointed out yesterday at Daily Kos, Nunes has been pretending to be an investigator, when he was part of the criminal syndicate all along. At the very least, an Ethics Committee investigation is required and likely inevitable-- and probably a great deal more. Vicky Ward's CNN exclusive yesterday was a shocker-- and possibly a harbinger of the end of Nunes' career in politics. Lev of Igor and Lev has ratted him out-- and in a big way!

Ward wrote that Joseph Bondy an attorney for Giuliani crony Lev Parnas told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings Nunes had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up-- or manufacturing-- dirt on Joe Biden and his son. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes. Shokin is the crook who Biden helped get fired for not persecuting corruption cases. Bondy told CNN that Lev and Nunes "began communicating around the time of the Vienna trip. Parnas says he worked to put Nunes in touch with Ukrainians who could help Nunes dig up dirt on Biden and Democrats in Ukraine." So... Nunes was the third stooge-- Igor, Lev and Devin!

Bondy tells CNN his client is willing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for documents and testimony as part of the impeachment inquiry in a manner that would allow him to protect his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Bondy suggested in a tweet on Friday that he was already speaking to House Intel though the committee declined to comment.

Giuliani has told CNN previously about his conversations with Shokin and  Parnas, saying that this was part of his legal work for his client, President Trump. Parnas' claims about Nunes' alleged involvement offers a new wrinkle and for the first time suggests the efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens involved a member of Congress.

Parnas' claims that Nunes met with Shokin, which has not been previously reported, add further context to a Daily Beast report that Parnas helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Nunes last year, citing another Parnas' lawyer, Ed MacMahon.

Those revelations came to a head on Thursday when Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell raised the Daily Beast story publicly during the impeachment hearing.

Parnas, who was indicted on federal campaign finance charges last month, worked with Shokin and Giuliani to push a pair of unfounded claims: that Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats, and that Biden was acting corruptly in Ukraine on behalf of his son Hunter, who sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings.

According to Bondy, Parnas claims Nunes worked to push similar allegations of Democratic corruption.

"Nunes had told Shokin of the urgent need to launch investigations into Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden, and any purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election," Bondy told CNN.

...Parnas is currently under house arrest in Florida and has pleaded not guilty to charges of federal campaign finance fraud.

Over the past two weeks, CNN approached Nunes on two occasions and reached out to his communications staff to get comment for this story.

In the Capitol on Nov. 14, as CNN began to ask a question about the trip to Vienna, Nunes interjected and said, "I don't talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime."

"At any time," Nunes added. "On any question."

Asked again on Thursday about his travel to Vienna and his interactions with Shokin and Parnas, Nunes gave a similar response.

"To be perfectly clear, I don't acknowledge any questions from you in this lifetime or the next lifetime," Nunes said while leaving the impeachment hearing. "I don't acknowledge any question from you ever."

Congressional travel records show that Nunes and three aides traveled to Europe from November 30 to December 3, 2018. The records do not specify that Nunes and his staff went to Vienna or Austria, and Nunes was not required to disclose the exact details of the trip.

Nunes' entourage included retired colonel Derek Harvey, who had previously worked for Trump on the National Security Council, and now works for Nunes on the House Intelligence Committee. Harvey declined to comment.

Bondy told CNN that Nunes planned the trip to Vienna after Republicans lost control of the House in the mid-term elections on Nov. 6, 2018.

"Mr. Parnas learned through Nunes' investigator, Derek Harvey, that the Congressman had sequenced this trip to occur after the mid-term elections yet before Congress' return to session, so that Nunes would not have to disclose the trip details to his Democrat colleagues in Congress," said Bondy.

At the time of the trip, Nunes was chairman of the Intelligence Committee. In January, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff  took over as chairman of the powerful committee, which is now conducting the impeachment inquiry.  

Bondy says that according to his client, following a brief in-person meeting in late 2018, Parnas and Nunes had at least two more phone conversations, and that Nunes instructed Parnas to work with Harvey on the Ukraine matters.

Parnas says that shortly after the Vienna trip, he and Harvey met at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where they discussed claims about the Bidens as well as allegations of Ukrainian election interference, according to Bondy.

Following this,  Bondy says that in a phone conversation Nunes told Parnas that he was conducting his own investigation into the Bidens  and asked Par nas for help validating information he'd gathered from conversations with various current and former Ukrainian officials, including Shokin.

Parnas says that Nunes told him he'd been partly working off of  information from the journalist John Solomon, who had written a number of articles on the Biden conspiracy theory for The Hill, according to Bondy. 

  ...Bondy tells CNN that Parnas is also willing to tell Congress about a series of regular meetings he says he took part in at the Trump International Hotel in Washington that concerned Ukraine. According to Bondy, Parnas became part of what he described as a "team" that met several times a week in a private room at the BLT restaurant on the second floor of the Trump Hotel. In addition to giving the group access to key people in Ukraine who could help their cause, Parnas translated their conversations, Bondy said.

The group, according to Bondy,  included Giuliani, Parnas, the journalist Solomon, and the married attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing.  Parnas said that Harvey would occasionally be present as well, and that it was Parnas' understanding that Harvey was Nunes' proxy, Bondy said. 

Solomon confirmed the meetings to CNN but said that calling the group a team was a bit of a mischaracterization. Solomon said that connectivity happened more organically, and that his role was only as a journalist reporting a story. 

Solomon also said that Di Genova and  Toensing, his lawyers, introduced him to Parnas as a facilitator and interpreter in early March. "Parnas was very helpful to me in getting Ukraine officials on the record," Solomon told CNN. "I only gradually realized Lev was working for other people, including Rudy Giuliani."

...In the weeks since his arrest, Parnas has become disenchanted with Trump  and Giuliani, according to Bondy as well as other sources who spoke to CNN. Parnas, these sources say, was particularly upset when Trump denied knowing him the day after Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were arrested in October.

Last week, CNN reported that Parnas had claimed to have had a private meeting with Trump in which the President tasked him with a "secret mission" to uncover dirt on Democrats in Ukraine.

"He believes he has put himself out there for the President and now he's been completely hung out to dry," a person close to Parnas told CNN. Last week, the White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment to a series of questions regarding the meeting and Trump's relationship with Parnas.

On Thursday, Bondy promoted the hashtag #LetLevSpeak on Twitter in response to a number of questions about whether Parnas would testify in front of Congress.

Bondy tweeted directly at Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy Thursday night after McCarthy accused Schiff of blocking important witnesses from testifying, saying "I don't agree with your premise, but please, if you mean what you say, call my client, Lev Parnas. #LetLevSpeak."

The progressive Democrat running for Nunes' Central Valley seat, Dary Rezvani told me that "All of this just continues to show how little Congressman Nunes actually cares about being a representative. The country is largely focused on just how corrupt these actions are and I have seen multiple comments asking how our district could ever vote for someone like him. Nunes has continued to be Trump biggest defender in Congress and this just shows how far he has been willing to go in his attempted protection and defense of Trump. All of that being said what is more concerning to me is that all of this protection has taken precedent over serving the constituents of CA-22. As our opioid crisis continued to worsen, as healthcare providers continued to leave our rural communities, and as our air and water quality continues to rank as some of the worst in the nation, Nunes has decided that further implicating himself with the corrupt actions of this administration was more important than addressing any of the issues impacting his district. He would know that if he had taken even a moment of time to hold a town hall in the last ten years. We are losing family farms to large corporations who don’t care about the district and continue to poison our communities with harmful pesticides yet he totes himself as a farmer who protects farmers. He is nothing more than a politician who protects his own interests and those of corporations seeking to make a quick buck off of an already impoverished  community that lacks the resources to fight back. I want to believe that at one point he became an elected official to do the right thing but the more I talk to farmers in our south valley, the less I believe this was ever the case. The reason Nunes has continued to be re-elected is because our district’s issues are systemic and just saying how bad Nunes is will never work simply because we have such low voter engagement. We will replace him when our Democratic nominee understands the root cause of our issues and has plans to fix them."

The Democratic Party has long ignored CA-22 in the Central Valley. As the party discovered last cycle, that's been big mistake. Had they been registering voters and building infrastructure over the last few years, Nunes would have bee defeated in 2018. Right now the district's population is 39.1% white, 47.5% Latino, 7.6% Asian and 2.9% black. That sounds like a winnable California district. But party registration isn't reflected in those demograhics. The Fresno County part of the district has 93,787 registered Republicans, 75,314 registered Democrats and 54,439 decline-to-state voters. The Tulare County part of the district has 50,371 registered Republicans, 39,635 registered Democrats and 32,590 decline-to-state voters. Please consider helping Rezvani replace Nunes in Congress by contributing to his campaign via the Blue California thermometer on the right.

Greg Sargent wrote today in his Washington Post column that "We need a deep reset. It's time to rhetorically treat Trump's defenders like his criminal accomplices." Yes-- and not just rhetorically... judicially as well.

UPDATE: Nunes Says He's Suing

The Central Valley crackpot says he's suing CNN and the Daily Beast. Nunes to right-wing media site Breitbart: "These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving." I wonder if they get to sit next to @DevinCow, who Nunes is also supposedly suing.