monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I don't regret putting him on ignore.

He posts the same bloody cartoon over and over again.

He posts the same bloody cartoon over and over again.

And yet you know

For one thing we can see his responses when someone else quotes him.

...but when they do not have the guts to respond to that person why post anything?

Do you really think it takes "guts" to respond to a post from a keyboard?

And with that particular character, everyone knows what he's going to say anyway.

"Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle - and there is a lot to choose from - one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are “Blocking Witnesses.”

This is an outrageous claim.

If the several days that have passed since the Bolton revelation have proved anything, it is just how uninterested Republicans are in holding Trump to account for his misconduct. Initially, even Trump’s staunchest supporters conceded that pressuring Ukraine to investigate Trump’s rivals would be, if true, unacceptable. (Lindsey Graham: “very disturbing”; Steve Doocy: “off-the-rails-wrong.”) As evidence of guilt accumulated, their denial that this unacceptable conduct took place narrowed to a tiny, highly specific claim: No witness testified that Trump personally ordered them to carry out a quid pro quo. Bolton is the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

It is probably for this reason that Republicans have fallen back to a quasi-legal argument offered by Alan Dershowitz: Even if true, abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. While Dershowitz’s reasoning is ahistorical, legally absurd, and opens the door to aspiring strongmen, it signals the party’s determination to acquit Trump regardless of the facts.

...But what if you assume, instead, that the cover-up affixes the blame onto Republicans? That the sheer nakedness of their methods liberates Democrats from the self-imposed constraint of respecting the election-year norm? They can keep digging into Trump from next week through fall, keeping public attention not only on his corruption and abuse of power but also on the Republican conviction that abuse of power is permissible. If impeachment is about exacting a price for Trump’s misconduct, perhaps the highest price will come by letting his enablers reveal exactly how far they are willing to go.

If he put me on ignore he wouldn't have this problem

If he put me on ignore he wouldn't have this problem, but he won't because he's a bloody idiot.

That's not a matter or principle.

Madeline Peltz
@peltzmadeline
3h
Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly cited Harvard professor Nikolas Bowie's scholarship to support his argument that abuse of power is not a crime.

Well, Bowie is on CNN right now calling Dershowitz's interpretation "a joke"

Nikolas Bowie'

Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Rand Paul Denied Whistleblower Question Again - Here's What He Asked

Here was Paul's exact question:

"Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings."

Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress — only protection from retaliation.

Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress — only protection from retaliation.

I think the threat of retaliation is quite real, coming from Trump.