Wouldn't It Be Hilarious If The Senate Actually Found Him Guilty After All?

You can't 'unknow' something like this, right?

Monday, on Maine public Radio’s Morning Edition, Susan Collins used her experience from the Clinton impeachment trial to urge Moscow Mitch and Little Chucky Schmucky to play nice. “I think that the model and the precedent established by the trial for President Clinton is one that our leaders should take a hard look at. What happened back then is Senator Trent Lott on the Republican side, Senator Tom Daschle on the Democratic side, negotiated the terms to begin the trial. And those terms were adopted unanimously by the Senate, 100 to zero. I can't imagine anything like that happening today, regrettably. They decided that we would start with the opening arguments from both sides. And then we proceeded to a period where senators questioned the two sides through the Chief Justice. I remember submitting the only bipartisan question with Senator Russ Feingold at the time. And those questions, of which there were more than 100, elicited a lot of information that was very useful. So I hope we do that approach this time as well. Then we move to what I call the third stage. At that point, we debated whether or not we wanted to hear from witnesses and get additional documents. And there was a roll call vote, with Republicans wanting witnesses at that point. And Democrats, with few exceptions, not wanting witnesses, so we have a reverse of the current situation. And we decided to call just three witnesses and to have them deposed, rather than testifying live.”

Pressed by the host, she said she is open to calling witnesses, which is not the Trumpist line. “I am open to witnesses. I think it's premature to decide who should be called until we see the evidence that is presented and get the answers to the questions that we senators can submit through the Chief Justice to both sides.”

The reason Collins and Lisa Murkowski are even thinking about breaking with Trump and Moscow Mitch about calling witnesses is because of the bombshell reporting from the NY Times last week. Democrats-- and the media in general-- are presenting it as a game changer in the impeachment process.

Basically, the report reveals what many assumed, namely that Mulvaney was involved in withholding aid from Ukraine at Trump’s orders and that other Trumpists, primarily Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and then-National Security Adviser John Bolton overtly opposed the move. Monday, Schumer was running around like a chicken without a head, shrieking about calling them as witnesses.

"This new story shows all four witnesses that we Senate Democrats have requested" were "intimately involved and had direct knowledge of President Trump's decision to cut off aid and benefit himself," Schumer, a Democrat, told reporters in a press conference at his New York office.

"Simply put, in our fight to have key documents and witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial, these new revelations are a game changer."

The New York Times reported Sunday that Mulvaney was flying with President Donald Trump on Air Force One in June when he emailed his senior adviser to ask, “Did we ever find out about the money for Ukraine and whether we can hold it back?”

The adviser, Robert Blair, emailed back that it could be done, but he warned that they should "[e]xpect Congress to become unhinged," the report said, citing a previously undisclosed email. Assisting Mulvaney execute the hold were Blair and three officials in the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, the office's acting head, Michael Duffey, who oversees funding, and lawyer Mark Paoletta, the report said.

The Times' report also showed there was high-level pushback from top Trump officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and now-former national security adviser John Bolton.

The trio met with Trump in the Oval Office in late August and pressed him to release the aid, with Bolton telling the president, "This is in America's interest," the Times reported, citing an official briefed on the gathering.

Trump responded that he didn't believe Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, was a genuine reformer. "Ukraine is a corrupt country," Trump reportedly replied, adding that "We are pissing away our money."

Trump reversed course after news of the freeze became public and House Democrats announced they were investigating the hold.

The White House blocked Mulvaney, Pompeo, Esper, Vought, Bolton, Blair and others from testifying or turning over documents to House impeachment investigators.

Schumer is demanding Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) call Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair and Duffey as witnesses at Trump's Senate trial. Emails made public last week showed that Duffey was the official who told the Pentagon that the president wanted the aid frozen-- a request that came just hours after Trump's July phone call with the Ukrainian president that has served as the backbone of the impeachment proceedings against him.

The four witnesses "were intimately involved" with what was going on behind the scenes, Schumer said.

"Let me be clear, this is about getting to the truth," the Democratic leader said. "Will the Senate hold a fair trial or will it enable a cover-up? President Trump, if you are so confident you did nothing wrong, why won't you let your men testify?"

The Senate trial will begin after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sends the two articles of impeachment over to the Senate, but it's unclear when exactly that will be. Senators are slated to return to Washington on Jan. 3.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, told MSNBC's Katy Tur on Monday that the Times’ article “vindicates the judgment of the House of Representatives.”

"The New York Times story just fills in a lot more details about the essential narrative that is in the impeachment report coming from the House of Representatives," he said. "And we hope that the Senate would indeed fill in further facts that have since surfaced, you know, after our impeachment of the president."

Rep. Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman who led the House impeachment inquiry, tweeted a link to the story and wrote, "Despite the President’s obstruction, additional damning evidence of his abuse of power continues to come to light. The question is whether the Senate will demand to see these and other emails and hear from those who were involved."

North Carolina Fascist Mark Meadows Making His Move?

Buzz on Capitol Hill is that Mark Meadows may give up his safe House seat for a year-- if he lasts a year-- as Trump's chief of staff. No doubt he feels he won't be able to get anything done in a Congress firmly dominated by Democrats but could make a mark running the show for the chief executive described by Anonymous in A Warning as someone with severe attention deficit disorder.

"Take, for instance," wrote Anonymous, "the process of briefing the president of the United States, which is an experience that no description can fully capture. In any administration, advisors would rightfully want to be prepared for such a moment. This is the most powerful person on earth we are talking about. But before a conversation with him, you want to make sure you've got your main points lined up and a crisp agenda ready to present. You're about to discuss weighty matters, sometimes life-and-death matters, with the leader of the free world. A moment of utmost sobriety and purpose. The process does not unfold that way in the Trump administration, Briefings with Donald Trump are of an entirely different nature. Early on, briefers were told not to send lengthy documents. Trump wouldn't read them. Nor should they bring summaries to the Oval Office. If they must bring paper, then PowerPoint was preferred because he is a visual learner. Okay, that's fine, many thought to themselves; leaders like to absorb information in different ways. Then officials were told that PowerPoint decks needed to be slimmed down. The president couldn't digest too many slides. He needed more imagines to keep his interest-- and fewer words. Then they were told to cut back the overall message (on complicated issues such as military readiness or the federal budget) to just three main slides. Eh, that was still too much. Soon West Wing aides were exchanging 'best parctices' for success in the Oval Office. The most salient advice? Forget the three points. Come in with one main point and repeat it-- over and over again, even if the president inevitably goes off on tangents-- until he gets it. Just keep steering the subject back to it. ONE point. Just the one point. Because you cannot focus the commander in chief's attention on more than one goddamn thing over the course of a meeting, ok? Some officials refused to believe this is how it worked. 'Are you serious?' they asked, quizzing others who's briefed the president. How could they dumb down their work to this level? They were facilitating presidential decisions on major issues, not debates on where to go out for dinner... More changes were ordered to cater to Trump's peculiarities. Documents were dramatically downsized, and position papers became sound bites. As a result, complex proposals were reduced to a single page (or ideally a paragraph) and translated into Trump's 'winner and losers' tone."

Unfake News by Nancy Ohanian

In her review of the book, Jennifer Szalai wrote that "Attempts by the 'adults in the room' to impose some discipline on a frenzied (or nonexistent) decision-making process in the White House were 'just a wet Band-Aid that wouldn’t hold together a gaping wound,' Anonymous writes. The members of the 'Steady State' (the term 'Deep State' clearly stings) have done everything they can, to no avail. Anonymous is passing the baton to 'voters and their elected representatives'-- only now the baton is a flaming stick of dynamite."

This might seem ideal to a manipulative ideologue like Mark Meadows, who wrote that he always considered himself a "fat nerd" and who lied about getting a college degree when he just got an associates degree. before getting into Congress in 2012, he was a real-estate agent. He tried getting the chief of staff job for himself when Trump fired John Kelly in January and now, as Trump prepares to off Mulvaney, Meadows is trying again.

You think Trump's policy agenda is bad? Meadows' is in an entirely different dimension. Meadows is like a laser-focused modern-day Mussolini compared to Trump's bumbling Charlie Chaplin character.

David Drucker of the Washington Examiner wrote that Meadows recently "accompanied Trump to New York to attend a mixed martial arts fight and then joined the president a couple of days later for a campaign rally in Lexington, Kentucky-- trips and locales with no connection to the Republican congressman’s western North Carolina House district... Meadows's frequent presence in the White House, is leading some Republican aides and lawmakers in the House to believe the congressman is auditioning to become chief of staff."

Meadows, 60, is playing a critical role in the House Republican effort to undermine the Democratic case for impeachment, which centers around a telephone conversation Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The president asked Zelensky to open an investigation into Joe Biden, the former vice president, and his son, Hunter Biden. Democrats charge that Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Kyiv unless Zelensky complied.

...“He’s one of the president’s favorite members of the House and will be extremely important as this impeachment witch hunt moves forward,” said Jason Miller, a Republican operative who advised Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Given that, Republican insiders suspect that if Meadows does get the White House chief of staff post, it would become his until after the likely Senate trial concludes early next year. Meanwhile, Meadows is in a position to offer Trump a detailed, inside account of the unfolding impeachment proceedings.

So what happens if Trump does fire Mulvaney and replace him with Meadows? Well, aside from God save the country... there's the 11th district of North Carolina. Completely gerrymandered and with a PVI of R+14, it's the reddest congressional district in the state. Trump won it 63.2% to 34.0%, his best performance in North Carolina. The western district contains all or pieces of 16 counties. Meadows was reelected last year 178,012 (59.2%) to 116,508 (38.8%), losing just one county, Buncombe (even though Asheville was excised from the district to make it redder). Meadows spent $1,310,318 to Phillip Price's, his Democratic opponent, $232,177.

Price wants to run again this cycle and he's in a primary with Steve Woodsmall. Both are running on progressive platforms. This district was drawn to elect Republicans. Until the districts are redrawn to represent people not parties and politicians, NC-11 is pretty much unflippable.

Hard To Imagine Trumpists Won't Be Going To Prison Over The Ukraine Cover-Up

Barr, Pompeo, Trump And Pence-- Where's Mulvaney?

As the GOP was deciding to put Ohio neo-fascist Gym Jordan on the Intel Committee to disrupt the impeachment inquiry, the Ttrumpist defense was dealt another deadly blow as Gordon Sondland "revised" the testimony he gave last month and now admits Trump was guilt of instituting a quid pro quo in the Ukraine case. CNN reported that Sondland's attorney sent the committee a letter and a three-page addition to his testimony, which said he had remembered a conversation on September 1 with Andriy Yermak, an aide to the Ukrainian President, linking the aid to the investigations. 'I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,' Sondland said. Sondland's new testimony, which was included in the public release of his closed-door deposition transcript on Tuesday, adds to Democrats' evidence that the President connected the freezing of $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine to investigations into the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden."

Yesterday, Washington Post reporters Phil Rucker and Toluse Olorunnipa wrote that at his failed election eve visit to Lexington, Kentucky "Trump repeated a false claim he has made more than 100 times in the past six weeks: that a whistleblower from the intelligence community misrepresented a presidential phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry that threatens his presidency. 'The whistleblower said lots of things that weren’t so good, folks. You’re going to find out,' Trump said Monday at a campaign rally. 'These are very dishonest people.' Behind him were men and women in 'Read the Transcript' T-shirts-- echoing through their apparel Trump’s attempt to recast an incriminating summary of his July 25 call with Ukraine’s president as a piece of exonerating evidence. It’s a form of gaslighting that has become the central defense strategy for the president as he faces his greatest political threat yet. But the approach is coming under increasing strain as congressional Democrats release transcripts and prepare to hold public hearings presenting evidence that directly undercuts Trump’s claims. That the whistleblower report essentially mirrors the set of facts that have since been revealed by a stream of documented evidence and sworn testimony has not stopped Trump from repeatedly claiming otherwise. He has also pushed other specious arguments in his harried attempt to counter the growing evidence from witnesses implicating his administration in a quid pro quo scheme linking military aid to Ukrainian investigations targeting Democrats." Lexington voters appeared to know Trump was lying his ass off. Fayette County went massively for Beshear in a two-to-one landslide-- 73,397 (65.51%) to 36,915 (32.95%).

Mick Mulvaney is an idiot with loose lips and a lot to hide and he's not going to be showing up for any questioning by Congress' impeachment committees. Nevertheless, yesterday, Adam Schiff, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Eliot Engel, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee,and Carolyn Maloney, Acting Chair of the Oversight Committee, sent a letter asking Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to appear at a deposition this Friday, November 8, as part of the impeachment investigation into Señor Trumpanzee.

My favorite part of the letter: "Based on evidence gathered in the impeachment inquiry and public reporting, we believe that you possess substantial first-hand knowledge and information relevant to the House’s impeachment inquiry.  Specifically, the investigation has revealed that you may have been directly involved in an effort orchestrated by President Trump, his personal agent, Rudolph Giuliani, and others to withhold a coveted White House meeting and nearly $400 million in security assistance in order to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests, and jeopardized our national security in attempting to do so."

The early October documents subpoena the three congressional committees sent Mulvaney was ignored, although 2 weeks later Mulvaney-- apparently inadvertently-- revealed in a press conference that Trump blocked nearly $400 million in congressionally approved security assistance for Ukraine in order to further his own personal political interest, rather than the national interest. There is overwhelming evidence already gathered in the impeachment inquiry and public reporting that Mulvaney played a direct role in the scheme to pressure the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election by manufacturing damaging information about the Bidens and in the ensuing and on-going coverup.

On Sunday, Rachel Bade, Josh Dawsey and Eric Werner reported for the Washington Post Russell Vought, a Mulvaney protege who runs the White House OMB intends to present "a wall of concerted defiance of congressional subpoenas" this week, along with two of his subordinates-- proving their loyalty to Trumpanzee while attempting to create a firewall for Republicans to use while defending Trump's use of foreign aid to elicit political favors from Ukraine. "The OMB," they wrote, "is at the nexus of the impeachment inquiry because Democrats are pressing for details about why the White House budget office effectively froze the Ukraine funds that Congress had already appropriated." Mulvaney seems to have orchestrated a defense.

The anticipated defiance toward impeachment investigators comes as Trump has grown enraged that so many of “his employees,” as he refers to them, are going to Capitol Hill and testifying, said a person who regularly talks with him and who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The president has asked for copies of witness statements so he can decide how to criticize them, complained that his lawyers are not doing enough to stop people from talking, and even encouraged members of Congress to question the credibility of people working in his own administration, current and former officials said.

“He is the war room,” press secretary Stephanie Grisham said on Fox News.

Vought, who serves in an acting capacity in the job Mulvaney once held, has sought to build a relationship with the president for some time and sees standing firm against the impeachment inquiry as a way to bolster it, according to two White House officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Like Trump, the longtime conservative warrior has derided the impeachment inquiry as a “sham process” and has said he will not comply with the subpoena to appear for a deposition this coming Wednesday. Vought shares the president’s disdain of foreign aid and has sought to cut it in previous budgets.

Trump has at times questioned the loyalty of Mulvaney’s aides, but OMB officials have assured the president they will not show up and help the Democrats’ probe, two officials said, pleasing the president.

Vought’s move to stonewall Congress follows a string of National Security Council and State Department witnesses testifying that the president tried to withhold nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine unless that country would launch politically charged investigations that could benefit Trump. Vought, Blair and the other two OMB officials called to testify could shed more light on those decisions and the process.

Although OMB officials were not the ones calling the shots about how to handle the military aid, it was their responsibility to implement those decisions and to release the aid-- or hold it up-- as directed. Their testimony could fill in important details about the decision-making process around the money.

“We know from the president that he wanted the Ukrainians to do these investigations, and we know that aid was being withheld when he was asking the Ukrainians,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), an impeachment investigator. “You still have to connect all the dots… They’re dot-connecting witnesses.”

Vought was immediately told of the president’s decision to scuttle the aid and agreed with some other top advisers that it was legal, two administration officials said. Michael Duffey, one of Vought’s subordinates who has also been called to testify on Tuesday and who controls foreign aid decisions in the OMB, signed the OMB document freezing the Ukraine aid, according to the administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Duffey is OMB’s associate director for national security programs.

An agency spokeswoman said its officials are simply abiding by the White House’s directive, which is that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and the administration is not cooperating.

“The idea that OMB’s posture is informed by anything other than respecting the prerogatives of the president is absurd,” said OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel.

Trump suggested on Sunday he could continue exerting his prerogative over OMB when he told a reporter that he wouldn’t rule out directing another government shutdown later this month if negotiations with Democrats don’t lead to the results he wants.

The expected defiance from Mulvaney’s allies could bolster the standing of the acting chief, whose job has been a constant source of speculation. In an interview with the Washington Examiner last week, Trump seemed to sympathize with Senate Republicans’ annoyance at Mulvaney and refused to weigh in on whether he was “happy” with Mulvaney’s performance. He continues to complain about him, advisers say, but is unlikely to immediately replace him at this time.

“Happy?” he asked in response to a question from The Examiner. “I don’t want to comment on it.”

The OMB officials’ refusal to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry will mark a significant break from the trend of the past four weeks, when House Democrats have had success convincing a parade of current and former administration officials to testify about their concerns regarding Trump’s use of foreign policy for political gain. Those officials have come forward despite orders from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to ignore impeachment summons.

The OMB’s posture could complicate Democrats’ investigation, keeping them from learning more details about alleged moves to link aid to Ukraine with Trump’s pressure on the nation. Democrats argued, however, that it might not matter in the long run, as they already have two witnesses testifying that the money hinged on the Biden investigations.

“In my view it would be useful to hear from them, but not essential,” said Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), an impeachment investigator.

The decision to ignore a congressional subpoena comes with risk. House Democrats could hold Vought and his aides in contempt of Congress or take them to court to try to compel their testimony, as the party has done for former White House counsel Donald McGahn. Democrats have said they will not wait on the courts before they proceed with their impeachment inquiry. But by suing Trump officials, they could force testimony next year, shortly before the presidential election.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

On Thursday October 17th, White House Chief Of Staff Mick Mulvaney went on live national TV and self-immolated faster than some poor suicidal Saigon monk soaked in kerosine. Mulvaney didn't just display the out of control arrogance that got him his job; he confessed about Ukraine for the president and turned himself into the proverbial smoking gun. Who needs tapes when we already have a Ukraine call transcript, witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and now, a live confession by Trump's number one guy? Hint to both houses of congress: Read that last sentence again. Unless, that is, you wish a similar fate. Are you punks feeling lucky? Well, are you?

It wasn't just the further evidence of corruption and abuse of power that Mulvaney supplied with his smug and arrogant "Get over it!" He even managed to throw in his now famous bit about his boss deciding (a decision that Trump is now backing away from) to have the next G7 (or G8) held at his financially troubled and bed bug infested Doral Golf and Porn Palace. The whole thing would have been yet another blatant, in your face violation, a huge one, of e Constitution's Emoluments Clause. It might have even been presented as an additional article of impeachment. Can we throw in the outright treason of asking foreign countries to subvert our elections, too? And by the way, is anyone bothering to wonder what Trump and Kim Jong-un have cooked up about that in their secret behind closed door, no witnesses meetings? North Korea has been playing with our computers for years.

By my count, the just and proper number of potential Articles Of Impeachment is now at least 3, and counting. Let's have none of this just presenting one article and settling for a farce of acquittal in the equally corrupt $enate. Nothing short of impeachment, removal, and life imprisonment will do. Although, in this case, I would be fine with execution by hanging, or, ironically, since republicans have such a love of gunplay, firing squad.

Meanwhile, DWT is proud to present the clip of Mick Mulvaney's soon to be demise below.

Is Mulvaney Gonesky? Trump's Smoothly Functioning Something Or Other... Plus More Adventures Of Igor And Lev

Chris Wallace-- not on Comcast-TV, but on Fox-TV-- gave Mick Mulvaney enough rope to hang himself. And he did, painfully, excruciatingly. Watch the video above; Mulvaney struggled to de-infuriate Trump by trying, weakly, to walk back his quid pro quo statement about the Democrats' biggest major impeachment weapon. The Wall Street Journal quoted Trumpanzee-whisperer Sean Hannity explaining why play-Acting White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney is making such a complete muddle of everything lately: "I just think he’s dumb, I really do. I don’t even think he knows what he’s talking about." The sentiment is taking hold in the Trump White House.

Kushner-in-law has been sending out feelers to unnamed Trumpists asking if anyone would be willing to take on the play-Acting Chief of Staff job. And yesterday CBS reported that top White House lawyer, Pat Cipollone, and Mulvaney are feuding. "Internal feuds are nothing new in the Trump White House. And Mulvaney, like predecessors Reince Priebus and John Kelly, has faced maneuvering against him and rumors of his imminent demise. Mulvaney's status, however, appears more open to question now, and even his allies consider Cipollone a central rival. The two top administration officials are now vying for the chief of staff position and Mr. Trump's support as the White House continues to fend off the launched a month ago by the Democratic-led House, two sources familiar with the intensifying rivalry told CBS News. 'It's a death match,' according to one source."

According to the sources, Cipollone and his allies within the administration faulted Mulvaney for the botched effort to enlist former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy to join the president's legal defense team to counter the impeachment inquiry.

Those close to Mulvaney contend Cipollone is a bigger problem, primarily his hard-nosed legal advice-- so far accepted by Trump-- to ignore the House impeachment inquiry and refuse all cooperation with requests for documents and witnesses. One Mulvaney ally described Cipollone's maneuvering as a "smokescreen for his own malpractice."

In an effort to retain his White House post, which he is exercising alongside his role as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mulvaney has worked extensively to keep in good graces with White House senior advisers Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, the two sources said.

During a White House press briefing Thursday, Mulvaney sent tremors throughout Washington when he appeared to brashly admit that the administration had in fact engaged in a quid pro quo with the government of Ukraine.

"[Did] he also mentioned to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server?" Mulvaney told reporters on Thursday, referring to the president. "Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the money."

"The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate," he added.

The comments undercut the president's frequent denials of any type of quid pro quo with Ukraine, and they were quickly portrayed by Democrats as a confession that showed the White House had conducted foreign policy with the objective of furthering Mr. Trump's political ambitions.  

Trump also insisted he doesn't know Igor and Lev-- both in jail, unable to raise the $1 million bail (each). The Wall Street Journal, helpfully, released this catch-up with Lev video clip yesterday:





Judd Legum, at his Popular Info newsletter, reiterated that on the laughable Trumpist anti-impeachment website, Stop The Madness, a top talking point is always: No Quid Pro Quo:

"Yesterday," Legum wrote on Monday, "Mulvaney appeared on Fox News Sunday to try to clean up the mess. He made things worse. Mulvaney's strategy during his Fox News Sunday interview was to simply deny what he said in front of dozens of cameras. The results were predictably disastrous." If you didn't watch the video up top, take a minute and take in the scope of Mulvaney tap dancing.

Trump's belief that Ukraine has the DNC server that would reveal the true origins of the Russia investigation is a completely illogical conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory, which has its origins in an anonymous post on 4chan, a site favored by internet trolls, posits that "CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm that worked with the Democratic National Committee and had been contracted to investigate a hack of its servers, fabricated a forensics report to frame Russia for election interference."

Online, this claim was bolstered by fake documents produced by a British internet troll. The British man, Tim Leonard, "ran an international disinformation campaign that has provided US President Donald Trump with fake evidence and false arguments to deny that Russia interfered to help him win the election."

In the phone call with Zelensky, Trump suggests that CrowdStrike is owned by a wealthy Ukranian and that the DNC server is now located in Ukraine. Both of these claims are false. CrowdStrike is owned by U.S. citizens. The company explained that it has "never taken physical possession of any DNC servers." Rather, its investigation involved creating "an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives."

  The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to absolve Russia, which has been named as the responsible party by the entire U.S. intelligence community and the Mueller investigation. Mulvaney's contention is that conditioning hundreds of millions in military aid, which had already been approved by Congress, on a Ukrainian "investigation" of this conspiracy theory was "completely legitimate."

Trump Only Has Bad Days Now-- Although I Guess Some Are Worse Than Others

Everybody ready for Halloween?

Assuming-- as you should-- that Mulvaney was speaking for the White House, he admitted that the aid to Ukraine was indeed held up as part of a quid pro quo. So everyone agrees that the military equipment was the quid; the only disagreement is what the quo was. That Trump was shown to be a liar doesn't seem to matter at the White House at this point. His supporters don't care and everyone else already knows everything he says is false anyway. NY Times congressional correspondent Nick Fandos tweeted that Adam Schiff's response to Mulvaney's admission was that "things have gone from very, very bad to much, much worse." And Mulvaney's bullshit that it wasn't really about the Bidens is easily disproven and laughed at. [Late in the day the chief of the gang that couldn't not tell a lie, revised his statement and said there was no quid pro quo after all. Oopsie-doopsie. No one believes him, but Trump's defense team insisted on it for future court arguments.]

The context was Gordon Sondland's devastating testimony yesterday. Sondland was an Oregon hotelier and banister who regularly plowed immense sums of money into the GOP. Examples:

• May 16, 2017- NRSC- $33,900
• May 31, 2016- NRSC- $33,400
• September 11, 2015- RNC- $33,400
• June 28, 2013- RNC- $32,400
• January 30, 2012- RNC- $30,800 x 2
• Jan 14, 2015 Right To Rise, USA- $25,000
• April 19, 2016- Kentucky Republican Party- $10,000
• June 24, 2016- Ohio Republican Party- $10,000
• October 12, 2012- Oregon Republican Party- $6,750

And that doesn't count dozens of max donations to Republicans like Romney, McCain, Bush, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Thom Tillis, Rand Paul, Portman, etc. And the big one-- a million dollars to Trump's inaugural committee. That's big not just because of the sum, but because Trump pocketed much of that still unaccounted for money. In return, Sondland wanted and got the EU ambassador job, a post he took up in July of 2018. Washington Post reporter John Hudson wrote that "Sondland, a major Trump donor who has became a focus of the impeachment inquiry due to his outsized role in U.S.-Ukraine policy, said in his remarks that he criticized the president’s handling of Ukraine policy, including the temporary hold on nearly $400 million in aid to the country and the recall of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Sondland called her an 'excellent diplomat' and said he 'regretted' her departure, which followed a campaign by Giuliani to paint her as disloyal to the president... In this remarks, Sondland said in principle he opposes any 'quid pro quo' that would exchange U.S. support to a friendly nation for an investigation into Trump’s political rival, former vice president Joe Biden. But he said he became aware only recently that Trump’s efforts to investigate an obscure Ukrainian energy company named Burisma were due to its associations with Biden, whose son Hunter worked for the energy company. Joe Biden is a leading Democratic candidate for president.

“I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani’s agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President’s 2020 reelection campaign,” he said. “Although Mr. Giuliani did mention the name ‘Burisma’ in August 2019, I understood that Burisma was one of many examples of Ukrainian companies run by oligarchs and lacking the type of corporate governance structures found in Western companies.”

Sondland’s apparent failure to connect the dots between Burisma and the Bidens occurred as Giuliani made several televised appearances over the spring and summer criticizing Hunter Biden’s involvement on the board, and numerous newspaper and magazine articles questioned whether his role at Burisma could prove to be a drag on his father’s presidential campaign.

In his testimony, Sondland, a hotel magnate who came to the job with no diplomatic experience, depicts himself as a well-meaning but in some cases out of the loop emissary for the president who tried to do what he could to prop up the government of Ukraine as it fends off Russian-backed separatists.

“My goal has always been to advance U.S. interests in securing a strong relationship with Ukraine,” he said in his remarks. “Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings.”

Parts of his testimony appear to conflict with the testimony of other officials this week, including Fiona Hill, the National Security Council’s former senior director for Russia and Europe. Hill told House investigators that she was concerned by Sondland’s talk of investigations in a July meeting, which she eventually relayed to a lawyer for the National Security Council.

Sondland, in his opening remarks, said was never aware of objections from her or her boss, national security adviser John Bolton. “I have to view her testimony-- if the media reports are accurate-- as the product of hindsight and in the context of the widely known tensions between the NSC, on the one hand, and the State Department, on the other hand,” he said.

Sondland claims that his pursuit of investigations in Ukraine were always in line with long-standing U.S. policy to push for transparency and anti-corruption efforts in the country.

You can read all of Sondland's prepared statement here. And... Rick Perry, on a trip to Texas with Trump on Airforce One, that he's resigning. Wonder what Trump was like when he was just 34 years old?

Was It Inevitable That Trump's Presidency Would Fall Apart? It's What Putin Was Counting On

Worst "president" ever just ended a truly horrific week... entirely of his own making. And it's bad for the country and it's bad for all of us. If you believe in the power of prayer, start praying that he goes-- and fast. Or that Mueller's report has so many smocking guns and so much collusion that not ever the Republican cowards in Congress can keep whistling Dixie.

Three guys with great White House connections, Mike Allen, Jim VandeHei, Jonathan Swan, reported that Trump is already becoming disenchanted with Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Trump asked one trusted adviser: "Did you know [Mulvaney] called me 'a terrible human being'" back during the campaign? The Axios Three say that "Trump was furious when the slight surfaced in a two-year-old video right after he promoted Mulvaney.



A week after that tape became the talk of Washington, CNN reported that Mulvaney called Trump's views on his silly border wall and on immigration "simplistic... absurd and almost childish." Asked on a radio show, when he was still a congressman, Mulvaney explained "[T]o just say 'build the darn fence' and have that be the end of an immigration discussion is absurd and almost childish for someone running for president to take that simplistic of [a] view... "And by the way, the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence. What they need is more manpower, and more technology, and more willingness to enforce the law as it exists today. There are parts of our border that are secure and parts of our border that are not. A lot of that comes down to whether or not we are just willing to enforce the law as it exists. So it's easy to tell people what they want to hear, 'build the darn fence, vote for me.'"

Earlier in the interview, Mulvaney said his views on immigration were shaped by talking to Texas ranchers.

"The fence is an easy thing to sell politically," Mulvaney said. "It's an easy thing for someone who doesn't follow the issue very closely to say, 'oh, well that'll just solve everything, build the fence.' When you go out and you talked to the Texas ranchers. Which I've done, [Rep.] Jeff Duncan has done, and ask them-- these are the guys dealing with it every single day."

"Because we have a fence there," the interview said. "And they're building tunnels."

"Yeah we have a fence, Mulvaney responded. "That's exactly the point."

Mulvaney added he believed Trump's emotional appeals and cavalier attitude might prompt him to try going around the Constitution.

"I wonder who is more interested in going around the Constitution in order to get things done. Barack Obama or Donald Trump," Mulvaney said.

"It's easy to tell people what they want to hear. It's easy to appeal to people's emotions," Mulvaney added. "I'm angry. I get it. I mean, believe me, I'm as angry as anybody on this. I do this for living. I have to deal with this administration every single day. It's extraordinarily frustrating. I feel that anger because I live with it and I talk to people about it."

"That's what I do when I come home, and that's people are angry," he continued. "And I get it because I'm as angry as they are, but just to appeal to somebody's emotion and say, vote for me because I'm as angry as you are, doesn't really solve the problem. It might make you feel better in terms of having voting with somebody who sympathizes with you, but it doesn't really solve the problem and that's what I'm interested in trying to do is, how do you solve the problems and winning elections is part of solving the problems."

It was a really bad day, week, month year for Trump. He inherited a stable foreign policy, built by both parties over decades, and he's destroyed it like a bull in a china shop. He inherited a roaring economy and he's killing it. The Trump Stock Market just ended its worst week in a decade. He's destroying a democracy that was built over the course of more than two centuries. Now he's shutting down the government-- primarily because he doesn't have the capacity to deal with all the crap he's created around him. Everything he touches turns to shit. And everyone knows it's all going to get much worse-- on every level. All that... without even putting the Mueller investigation into the equation.

2018 In Review: Gen. John Kelly Is Out. Mick Mulvaney Is In. Who’s Next? The Whole World Is Watching, Part 2

by Noah

Gen. John Kelly is gone. Trump's former Chief of Staff, a man of such low character that only the character of Trump himself could make his look better by comparison, had finally had enough. Working with the criminally insane has to be one of the most stressful jobs imaginable and as bad as he is, and was, who knows what horrors Kelly might have managed to derail. Imagine how bad an act has to be for someone like Kelly to disapprove of it.

Mick Mulvaney is the new White House Chief Of Staff, make that Acting Chief Of Staff. It’s Mulvaney’s third administration job in less than two years. He’s reportedly not even leaving his Office Of Budget Management job. Why? Simple; Trumpanzee is his own Chief Of Staff because he is immune to management. That, together with the stench of corruption that comes with the Chief Of Staff job is good reason not to give up your day job. Oh, and he better lawyer up. That need comes with the job.

Trump was having trouble getting anyone to take the job so he just drafted Mulvaney over from the Office Of Budget Management. Las Vegas is probably already adjusting the odds as to how long Mulvaney will last but one can only shudder at what Mulvaney will prove to be like. It's a case of how low can you go. After all, this White House Chief of Staff thing hasn't exactly been going in the right direction. If you remember, Trump's first Chief of Staff, before Kelly, was former Republican Party head Reince Priebus. We thought that was sick and it was, but then came a man who, unlike Priebus, made absolutely no attempt to disguise his evil. Kelly most blatantly revealed it in his white supremacy, but that's a big reason why he got the job in the first place. That is the nature of the Trump White House. Rest assured, it will remain so.

As I write this, Kelly still has never apologized for his race-based attacks on Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson but why would we expect the kind of cretin Kelly is to do so? As soon as Kelly announced he was leaving, questions abounded. Why did he quit? Did he quit or was he fired? Was he fired in a petulant screaming fit? Does it matter? Who will change the Diaper Don's diapers now?

Before Mulvaney took the job, Mike Pence’s Chief Of Staff, Nick Ayers was “the new Chief Of Staff” for Trump but he didn’t even make it to the first day.

I have to admit that the question of who will soon replace Mulvaney has set my mind in motion. Who wants to be invited down to the oval bunker? How much of a masochist do you have to be? Better BYOCC (Bring your own cyanide caps).

The first name that comes to me is Jared Kushner. He’s family and Trumpanzee already has him sticking his face into just about everything. But what about Kellyanne Conway? Could it be the return of Spicy or The Mooch? A team of Spicy and The Mooch? Mike Huckabee? Some screaming FOX loon like Jeanine Pirro? Sean Hannity already lives up Trump's fat ass. How about a waitress from Mar-A-Lago? Rudy Giuliani? Carl Spackler?Ann Coultergeist? Annette Haven? Annie Sprinkle? Some Russian who doesn't speak a word of English? Borat for real? He’d get along great with Trump. Stay tuned!

The Opposite Of Berniepalooza

I spent the last few days in lovely Burlington, Vermont… at Berniepalooza. It was very inspiring, very forward-looking of course-- with speakers like Stephanie Kelton, Cornel West, Bill de Blasio, Abdul El-Sayed, Ben Jealous, Susan Sarandon, John Cusack, Bill McKibben… talking about the progressive vision for America and the world.

ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) had a conference too. It was the exact opposite-- how to abolish Social Security and Medicare kind of thing. Nancy Altman covered it for Common Dreams. “Mick Mulvaney, the Trump administration’s director of the Office of Management and Budget,” she wrote, “is the latest to make crystal clear the longstanding plan to destroy both programs… Mulvaney just revealed that he plans first to go after what he sees as more politically achievable cuts. He explained that the next step, presumably after Trump is in his second term, will be for the administration not just to cut these programs but to end them as we know them.”

Mulvaney is apparently so eager to go after our earned benefits that he threw the point into a speech to state legislators, even though both Social Security and Medicare are federal programs.

Mulvaney’s apparent uncontained enthusiasm to take away people’s earned benefits is similar to that of Mitch McConnell, who just weeks before the midterm, called for Social Security and Medicare to be “adjusted” (code for destroying them). McConnell couldn’t resist broadcasting his intentions, even though these programs are extremely popular even with Republican voters.

Why are these opponents so hostile to such important programs? Social Security, now more than eight decades old, and Medicare, now more than five decades old, have stood the test of time. Both of these efficient, virtually universal, overwhelmingly popular programs insure us against risks that all of us face. Rich or poor, anyone can suffer a disabling illness or accident, making work impossible. Rich or poor, any parent can die prematurely leaving dependent children. Rich or poor, all of us hope to live to old age and, if we are so fortunate, require income we cannot outlive and health insurance for the treatments and medication we inevitably will need.

The private sector is incapable of providing the wage and health insurance that Social Security and Medicare provide as efficiently, universally, securely or effectively as the federal government. Insurance works best when the greatest numbers of people are covered. The only entity that can require that everyone is covered and pays premiums as soon as they start working is the federal government. That is one of the reasons both Social Security and Medicare work so well.

And that is why Mulvaney, McConnell, and other opponents of these programs want to end them. These programs put the lie to their ideological zealotry, which insists that the private sector is always better than government.

Decades ago, opponents of these programs were forthright that their objections were ideological. They did not see the creation and administration of universal insurance programs as an appropriate role for the federal government. But the American people overwhelmingly disagreed, so this argument was utterly unsuccessful.

Now most opponents have changed their tactics, and proclaim their love for these programs. President George W. Bush, for example, proclaimed, “Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century.” His very next sentence argued for radically changing it.

Similarly, Mulvaney, McConnell, and other opponents hide their straightforward ideological opposition. Rather, these opponents subversively seek to undermine confidence in Social Security’s and Medicare’s future by asserting that both programs are unaffordable.

Worse, in their efforts to end Social Security and Medicare, they seek to turn Americans against each other. They tell us that seniors are taking from children, that people with disabilities are taking from seniors.

Moreover, in their efforts to lull us into thinking they are not seeking to hurt our legitimate interests, opponents claim that our vital and earned financial protection in the event of disability isn’t as “core” as our financial protection in the event of old age. In his recent ALEC speech, Mulvaney tried to make just such a claim, asserting, “You can reform and save a ton of money in Medicare and Social Security and not touch the primary pillars for the next several years.” Along those same lines, last April, Mulvaney rhetorically asked, “Do you really think that Social Security disability insurance is part of what people think of when they think of Social Security?”

I am confident that the over 10 million Americans receiving Social Security because of wages lost as the result of serious, work-ending disabilities understand that Social Security disability insurance is Social Security. When American workers pay into Social Security with every paycheck, disability insurance is one of the protections they earn, along with life insurance and retirement annuities.

Social Security disability benefits are inextricably intertwined with Social Security’s retirement and survivor benefits. Social Security benefits are generated from the same formula. When workers with disabilities reach retirement age, their benefit is unchanged in amount but is paid as a retirement benefit, no longer as a disability benefit. Despite those facts, though, Mulvaney’s claim that Social Security disability insurance is not really Social Security is a convenient rhetorical game to claim “core” benefits are not being touched.

For Medicare, Mulvaney revealed another trick before his ALEC audience. He floated the idea of Medicare no longer reimbursing teaching hospitals its fair share of those hospitals’ costs, arguing that the cut wouldn’t hurt beneficiaries. Like his claim that Social Security disability insurance is not “really’ Social Security, beneficiaries would be hurt, though not immediately, and the cause of the hurt would be difficult to trace.

While benefits wouldn’t be directly cut, it certainly would limit the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to get treatment at teaching hospitals if that were their choice and the best setting for their care. To the extent Medicare didn’t pay its fair share and teaching hospitals nevertheless continued to treat seniors and people with disabilities, those costs would be shifted to everyone else.

And, of course, this is just the start, Mulvaney made clear. “In the long term you’ll have to [make more major changes.] The president has asked me to fix the easy stuff first,” Mulvaney explained to his audience.

Fortunately, the Democrats-- who support expanding, not cutting, Social Security and Medicare-- have control of the House of Representatives, at least for now. But, all of us who want to keep the benefits we have earned must remain vigilant. We must not be fooled or confused into allowing opponents to make what they deem “easy” cuts to our earned benefits.

These opponents will not give up. And neither must we. Expanding, not cutting, our Social Security and Medicare is profoundly wise policy and is overwhelmingly popular. But it will only become a reality if we keep our voices loud, reminding our political leaders that it’s voters, not donors, to whom they must account next election day.

New Rule: "Until Donald Trump Is No Longer President, Don't Talk To Me About Any Cause Except Democrats Winning Elections"

The hell with Kirsten Gillibrand-- Bill Maher endorsed Al Franken for president on his HBO show Friday night. He explained why in the video above but, clearly, "he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people still like him!"

Then Bill goes after #MeToo excesses. You don't need me to reiterate it or even weigh in. Just listen to it yourself. Besides, I've made it clear who I'm backing for the Democratic nomination in 2020. And that stands.

Maher was right-- "people still like him." But you know who people don't like? Lots of rotten Republican politicians who want to take their healthcare away and who want to lock children up in cages and who rubber-stamp and enable Trump. And, more specifically, they don't like Ted Cruz. According to bother the NY Times and the Washington Post yesterday, former Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), now Trump's Budget Director, was at a closed door meeting with GOP fat cats with RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel (Trump forced her to change her name from Ronna Romney before he would allow her to take the RNC job). The Times was given an audio recording of Mulvaney's remarks, apparently by another member of the #NeverTrump Republican "Resistance."

"There's a very real possibility," said Mulvaney, "we will win a race for Senate in Florida and lose a race in Texas for Senate, O.K.?" He put the blame square on how dislikable Cruz is, especially in comparison to Beto O'Rourke. Mulvaney understands there is no Blue Wave-- "They want you to think there's a blue wave when there's not," he said-- but he doesn't understand that there's a massive anti-red wave headed in their direction, one that will take down the unlikable and the likable. Mulvaney asked "How likable is a candidate? That still counts." It does-- but not as much is a wave election.

The Times reported that Mulvaney "conceded that Republicans had nominated poor candidates in places and might struggle to defend a huge number of open House seats where Republican incumbents decided not to run for re-election." That's an understatement. The GOP has actual bona-fide Nazis running in some districts and criminals in others. Here's an example, Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley district was redrawn to be slightly bluer, just slightly. The well-liked incumbent, Charlie Dent, had had it with Trump and with the congressional GOP's decision to enable him instead of stand up to him. So he decided to retire. He would would probably have won reelection-- he's likable and respected and sane. His old PA-15 had a PVI of R+2 and the new 7th (71.6% of Dent's old district) has a PVI of D+1. Under the new boundaries, Hillary would have beaten Trump 48.7% to 47.6%.

Nothstein-- big ego problems, sexual predator... & GOP candidate

So the GOP really needed to recruit someone outstanding in order to hold the seat against a top notch Democrat, Susan Wild. Instead Instead they wound up-- by a hair-- with a dreadful candidate, Marty Nothstein. Nothstein, a cyclist, has been working as executive director of the Lehigh Valley velodrome (an arena for track cycling) for a decade. The velodrome board put him on unpaid leave in February-- something he's hidden from voters-- after it came to their attention that he has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct. Since then, they fired him. Nothstein, like every single Republican politician accused of sexual impropriety in history, denies everything and claims it was a "political hit job." He was able to hide the scandal for 6 months and flipped out when the Morning Call, after a 3-month investigation, blew the whistle. The other Republican in the primary, Dean Browning, who lost by just 318 votes, says he was unaware of the scandal and had no idea Nothstein had been put on leave (and then fired) because of it. When the Lehigh County GOP, asked Nothstein if he had any skeletons in his closet he lied and said he didn't, according to Browning, who added "If I was in his situation if an allegation came up, I would take it upon myself to explain to voters whether any of it is true or not." Paul Ryan's shady SuperPAC has been funding Nothstein's race but is refusing to comment on the scandal and a spokesman won't say whether or not they will continue their activities on his behalf.

So, whether you're talking about grotesque, toxic incumbents like Cruz-- like Devin Nunes (CA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Dana Rohrabacher (Moscow), Steve King (IA)-- or new recruits like Lyin' Bryan Steil (WI), Mark Harris (NC), or Seth Grossman (NJ)-- the actual candidates themselves are adding to the momentum of an anti-red wave, particularly with women voters who are paying close attention as Republican candidates reenact scenes from the 1950s on the hustings.