Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Friday, January 31, 2020

So, tell us what you really think, Dershowitz:

Alan Dershowitz In 2016: Trump Is Corrupt, Will Likely Be Corrupt As President

When asked about the Democratic candidate’s family charity, The Clinton Foundation, for which she faced accusations of possible impropriety, Dershowitz said it was nothing compared to Trump’s misconduct. 

 “When you compare that to what Trump has done with Trump University, with so many other things, I think there’s no comparison between who has engaged in more corruption and who is more likely to continue that if elected president of the United States,” Dershowitz said.

Isn't it amazing how quickly people like Dershowitz and others who eagerly acknowledged Trump's corruption, cheating, lying, and ignorance, now are his biggest synchophantic boot-lickers. 

They are all dishonest, shameful cowards.

One impeached; the other criminally indicted.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

A trial with no witnesses and no documents is not a trial...

it's a show trial/cover-up that one would expect to see in the old Soviet Union and now in North Korea. A trial with no witnesses and no document evidence is conducted to protect the guilty.

Americans understand this.

Trump threatened GOP senators to vote to acquit him (or else) and Trump is demanding, through legal means, to stop the publication of Bolton's book (which thoroughly implicates Trump as the corrupt, lying cheat that he is.)

In three short years Trump and the cowardly GOP senators have made a mockery of everything America once stood for --Truth and Justice -- all to appease a mendacious, venal, bully and Trump's ill-informed, grievance-driven base.

This is where America is under the corrupt and anti-American Trump and the current GOP.

When I was young, protesters used to call out in unison "The whole world's watching!". 

Republicans ought to consider that, now, as they open cans of gasoline with one hand and strike matches with the other. 

Escaping the wrath of Trump may seem fine over the next few months, but the process seems certain to destroy the GOP. 

 Are these self-interested Republicans blind to the that?

Tom Sullivan, Digby:

"If only there had been singing and costumes Wednesday, America might have been watching a production of “Götterdämmerung.” The GOP is determined to burn the republic to the ground in Trump’s name. No distortion of reason, nor of law or the Constitution, is too low. Republicans have lashed themselves to Trump and will see the country destroyed before they risk losing power. Yesterday they were dancing in the flames."

Rep. Ted Lieu and I are on the same page:

Image may contain: 1 person, possible text that says 'Ted Lieu @tedlieu Do you know who runs trials without calling in relevant witnesses? North Korea Iran Saudi Arabia #TuesdayThoughts'

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

The Truth Will Out


Trump and his goons don't want Bolton to testify, and they want to stop publication of his book.

Only GUILTY, corrupt criminals act like this.


White House aides floated the possibility of filing a restraining order on Bolton to stop him from speaking. This is not what innocent people do. This is what guilty people trying to cover up their crimes do. #JohnBoltonMustTestify, raise your hand if you agree. Raise ‘em high!

Imgage from the Wall Street Journal

Surprise, Mr. President. John Bolton Has the Goods.

"It’s just possible that common sense and reality have a shot at prying open the doors to the Senate chamber after all. After Republican senators claimed that it was perfectly reasonable to put a United States president on trial without hearing from any witnesses, a few of them are showing signs of recognizing that the truth matters. Or, at least, that the American people believe it does. 

 What’s changed? Shocking but not surprising revelations from John Bolton’s book manuscript, which The New York Times reported over the weekend, have made impossible to ignore what everyone has known for months: President Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine to benefit himself politically, and against the strenuous objections of his top aides and both parties in Congress. 

 On Monday morning, Mitt Romney, of Utah, said, “I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton.” 

 It’s refreshing to hear those words. And yet the fact that such a statement is noteworthy at all tells you how far from responsible governance Republicans have strayed."

Monday, January 27, 2020

But...but...Hunter Biden!!!!

Trumpian and Trumpublican hypocrisy at its finest!




In a Tweet this morning, 1/27/2020, Trump claimed that the House Democrats never asked John Bolton to testify. That's a bald-faced LIE!

The House Democrats asked John Bolton to testify on November 7, 2019, and the White House directed him NOT to appear, citing executive branch privileges. Trump KNOWS he is guilty and didn't want Bolton to appear at the impeachment hearings.  

Never, never, never believe a Trump Tweet unless you verify. This was easy to verify and to find out that Trump is a LIAR. Again!


Explosive revelations from John Bolton's manuscript for his upcoming book point to Trump's lies about his "perfect" call with Ukraine's President Zelensky.

"The New York Times on Sunday reported that the former national security adviser John Bolton had implicated President Donald Trump in an explicit quid pro quo related to Ukrainian military aid. 

The Times cited an unpublished manuscript of Bolton's coming book as indicating that Trump told Bolton in August that Trump would withhold military aid from Ukraine until it acceded to Trump's demands for politically motivated investigations."

"Among the Senate Republicans angry at the White House on Monday over revelations about a manuscript submitted for review by John R. Bolton are top allies of President Trump, including Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader. 

 Just hours before the trial was set to resume, Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, were privately pressing the president’s advisers for an explanation about Mr. Bolton’s account, which undercuts a key White House defense of the president and blindsided the senators, according to people familiar with their thinking."

Well, well, well. What do you suppose the spineless Congressional Republicans who are "angered" by these revelations will do?

My guess is nothing. That, and curl up into a ball, stick their fingers in their ears, and wimper.

P.E. commentater, skudrunner, will comment and say it's President Obama's fault. The rest of the Trump cult will say Bolton is a liar, not the guy who's been documented for telling thousands and thousands of lies. The most recent is the one about Lev Parnas, where Trump says he doesn't know him, never met him, maybe had a photo-op with him, and that's all.

A tape from Parnas's lawyers shows Trump and Parnas having a 45+ minute conversation where Trump tells Parnas and his thug friend to "Take her out!" -- which referred to Ukrain Ambassador, Marie Yavonovich.

Trump has the authority to dismiss any ambassador, they serve at his pleasure.

Why did he yell "Take her out!" to Parnas and Fruman, when those two men aren't part of the Trump administration and have no authority to do so?

And what the hell did Trump mean by "Take her out!" ?

All he had to do is tell the little worm, Pompeo, to fire her. Period.

Bolton MUST testify!

From my fb friend, L.P.:

"A draft of Bolton’s book directly contradicts Trump’s claim that he never tied the hold-up of Ukrainian aid to his demands for investigations:
Trump personally told Bolton he was linking the release of Ukraine military aid to the investigations he sought of Joe and Hunter Biden. Bolton is the first person with direct knowledge of Trump’s orders to come forward. 
Bolton, Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper were opposed to Trump’s scheme and spoke to him about it nearly a dozen times.

Pompeo directly told Bolton that Rudy Giuliani’s claims about Amb Yovanovitch being corrupt were not accurate — something he still refuses to say publicly. Bolton warned AG William Barr and White House lawyers that Giuliani was using his relationship with Trump to assist his private clients.

These revelations from Bolton’s could escalate pressure on Senate Republicans to vote to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial. A handful of Republican senators have suggested they might be open to hearing from witnesses but at least four would need to join all the Democrats to allow witnesses.
These bombshells highlight the possibility that new information will come out in the coming months that could backfire on Republicans who attempt to force an early end to the trial. It's impossible to imagine this is the end of what we’re going to learn in this still-unfolding story.

Sunday, January 26, 2020


for doing his Constitutionally mandated job.

But everyone knows that Trump is nothing more than a cheap little thug who calls people vile names because he knows they are far above him in intelligence and decency.

What is shocking is this from CBOTUS*


Trump suggests Schiff will pay a 'price' for pushing impeachment

What is this "price" Rep. Schiff will pay? Certainly not losing his seat in the US House, since Rep. Schiff is wildly popular in his district, in California, and in the rest of the country. So what is this "price" the Thug-in-Chief is threatening a member of Congress (which is a crime in itself?) 

Is Trump going to ask one of his goons to "Take him out!"? 

What in the name of all that's decent and lawful in this country does Donald Trump mean by saying Rep. Schiff has "not paid a price yet" for doing his duty?


Saturday, January 25, 2020


A Mafia boss.

Trump is allegedly heard on tape asking Giuliani's thugs, Parnas and Fruman (neither of whom are part of Trump's cabinet or administration), to "TAKE HER OUT! GET RID OF HER!"  "Her" refers to US Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, because she was fighting corruption and Trump and his goons were trying to promote it by bribing Ukraine's president into providing dirt on Trump's political rival.

"TAKE HER OUT!"  is classic Mafia-speak when asking underlings to get rid of someone.

Why would Trump ask Parnas and Fruman to get rid of Yovanovich when they have no such authority within his administration. The POTUS can fire any ambassador he wants. Why did he scream "TAKE HER OUT!" at two shady men who were NOT part of the State Department or part of the Trump Administration?

Do any Trump cultists care? Or do they think this is normal behavior by a POTUS?

ABC: Recording apparently captures Trump discussing Yovanovitch ouster with Parnas, Fruman

"Newly surfaced audio appears to capture President Trump telling associates he wanted then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired during a private April 2018 dinner, ABC News reported Friday. 

 As described by ABC, the recording appears to capture Trump speaking about Yovanovitch to Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, former associates of the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. 

 'The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we need to get rid of the ambassador,' a voice appearing to be Parnas's says. 'She's still left over from the Clinton administration."

 'Get rid of her!' a voice that appears to be Trump's responds. 'Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.' " 

Friday, January 24, 2020


.@RepAdamSchiff is a one-man master class in effective advocacy. He’s spellbinding without showboating, clear as a bell without being boring, educational without being condescending, and piercingly logical without being pedantic.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

On the first day of Donald J. Trump's impeachment "show trial"...

Trump's lawyers (SURPRISE!) lied:

Pat Cipollone kicked things off with a series of outright lies, a gesture that presumably brought tears to the big guy’s eyes. The first whopper was Cipollone’s claim that “not even [House Intelligence Committee chair and impeachment manager Adam] Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF,” the secure facility where members of Congress reviewed classified information relevant to the impeachment inquiry. 

This statement, of course, was not true at all. While some House Republicans tried to pull a publicity stunt at the time over colleagues who weren’t on the committees involved not being allowed in the room, those who were on the three relevant committees were granted the exact same level of access as Democrats.

Cipollone says “Not even Mr. Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF” during impeachment investigation.

That’s 100% false. Any member of the three investigating committees could attend, and many Republicans did!

Lie #2: Channeling the boss, Cipollone referenced the fact that during one of the House Intelligence Committee‘s hearings, Schiff paraphrased Trump‘s July 25 phone call with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. As the transcript had already been released, everyone knew that Schiff wasn’t claiming to be quoting it verbatim, but the president and Republicans pretended otherwise, and insisted the congressman was a traitor who should resign. Cipollone, an actual lawyer who you’d think would bring better arguments to the table, simply repeated the Trump talking point, telling the room on Tuesday, “When Mr. Schiff saw that his allegations [about Trump abusing his power] were false, and he knew it anyway, what did he do? He went to the House and he manufactured a fraudulent version of that phone call. He read it to the American people, and he didn’t tell them it was a complete fake.” 

In fact, Schiff disclosed up-front that his summary of what Trump said on the call was "shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words." 

Picking up where his colleague left off, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow also told a smattering of tall tales, falsely claiming that House Democrats delayed the articles of impeachment for “33 days”—he was off by about a week—and insisting that the president “was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses” during the House inquiry. 

That’s grossly misleading considering that 

(1) per the Constitution, the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses does not occur until the Senate trial, and 

(2) the administration outright refused to participate in the House’s proceedings. 

 Given his role as an impeachment manager, Schiff was afforded the opportunity to respond to these “falsehoods” in near-real time and he very gladly took it. 

“Now, I’m not going to suggest to you that Mr. Cipollone would deliberately make a false statement,” Schiff said on the Senate floor. “I will leave it to Mr. Cipollone to make those allegations against others. But I will tell you this. He’s mistaken. He’s mistaken. Every Republican on the three investigative committees was allowed to participate in the depositions. And more than that, they got the same time we did!”

Cartoon from Mad Mike's America

Tuesday, January 21, 2020


"Trump and the Republicans clearly want to make impeachment come and go as quietly as possible. They know that if the American public pays too much attention, if they’re forced to listen to the facts and the evidence against Donald Trump, it becomes almost impossible for the Senate to acquit him. As we head into the trial, 51 percent of Americans already think Trump should be removed. Nearly 70 percent think additional witnesses should be called to testify to Trump’s behavior. Trump is losing the impeachment fight; McConnell’s goal is to declare Trump the winner before the loss becomes unavoidable."--The Nation.

On the opening day of Trump's impeachment trial

keep in mind:

CNN poll: 51% say Senate should remove Trump from office 

About half of Americans say the Senate should vote to convict President Donald Trump and remove him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial (51%), according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, while 45% say the Senate should vote against conviction and removal. 

 Nearly seven in 10 (69%) say that upcoming trial should feature testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry. And as Democrats in the Senate seek to persuade at least four Republican senators to join them on votes over allowing witnesses in the trial, the Republican rank and file are divided on the question: 48% say they want new witnesses, while 44% say they do not. 

The poll is the first major national telephone poll since the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate, formally launching Trump's trial there. They are also the first such poll results since Soviet-born businessman Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani, publicly implicated the President in the Ukrainian pressure campaign during a series of television interviews.

‘Constitutional Nonsense’: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Defies Legal Consensus

WASHINGTON — As President Trump’s impeachment trial opens, his lawyers have increasingly emphasized a striking argument: Even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime. Their argument is widely disputed. It cuts against the consensus among scholars that impeachment exists to remove officials who abuse power. 

The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” means a serious violation of public trust that need not also be an ordinary crime, said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and the author of a recent book on the topic. “This argument is constitutional nonsense,” Mr. Bowman said. “The almost universal consensus — in Great Britain, in the colonies, in the American states between 1776 and 1787, at the Constitutional Convention and since — has been that criminal conduct is not required for impeachment.”

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic not popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.” MLK’s words are the final instruction to Senators who have sworn “to do impartial justice.”
9:54 AM · Jan 20, 2020Twitter for iPhone


In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton does not warn—as Dershowitz and some Rs claim—that we should reject impeachment when parties clash over it. To the contrary, Hamilton cites the inevitability of partisanship as a reason to support the Constitution’s approach to trying impeachments.
4:55 PM · Jan 19, 2020Twitter for iPhone

Trump's impeachment trial will not be fair and impartial because the Senate Republicans are as corrupt as the crook who's on trial.

America and the world know this.