As the case against Donald Trump grows, Fox News has been going to increasingly deranged lengths to avoid talking about evidence of the president’s alleged misconduct with Ukraine.
And on Wednesday, Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo broke new ground by laughing at State Department official George Kent for supposedly being unreasonably thirsty.
With a chyron which said “Dems’ Embarrassing Display of Partisan Theatrics”, Fox News showed clip after clip of Kent drinking water as Arroyo compared his bottle to a “water silo”…
“Fish are not this hydrated!” Arroyo scoffed.
If there’s one thing we love more than government accountability, it’s a well-hydrated man.
Of course, it is true that Kent does have a very big water bottle – he’s a smart enough man to know the importance of good hydration – but there were surely more important points for Fox News to talk about.
Although other people picked up on Kent’s monster bottle as well (it’s a 48oz Wide Mouth Silo by Nalgene, by the way), they tended to look at it as an endearing quirk.
And obviously, laughing at a man for drinking water is not the strong attack line Fox News seems to think it is.
WASHINGTON — Democrats on the House committees set to hear testimony next week from former special counsel Robert Mueller believe the hearings will help Americans understand “the gravity of the president’s misconduct,” staff members told reporters.
“It is not that that there will be a big, dramatic new revelation necessarily, we’re not expecting that,” a Democratic staffer on the Judiciary Committee said Thursday in a briefing ahead of the hearings. “What’s important is there is truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president — not once but again and again and again — that would result in any other American being criminally charged in a multiple count indictment.”
The committees are anticipating that “not everybody is reading the book (Mueller’s report) but people will watch the movie,” an aide said.
Mueller is expected to appear publicly Wednesday for three hours before the Judiciary Committee followed by roughly two hours before the House Intelligence Committee.
During his public statement in May after the report was complete, he said, “The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”
Trump said Friday that he wouldn’t be watching the hearings.
But both committees want to dig into Mueller’s evidence, not necessarily the conclusions — or lack thereof — laid out in his report. Democratic staffers believe the former special counsel will “lean into” the factual findings that his team made.
“Our focus is really going to be to have the special counsel talk about what the evidence is that he found, less about what the legal conclusion was, because some of the actual evidence is very concerning and has not received the attention it’s due,” an Intelligence Committee staffer said.
Mueller’s report did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its interference in the 2016 election.
On obstruction of justice, Mueller left it to Attorney General William Barr to choose whether to bring obstruction charges against the president; Barr declined to do so, he told Congress, based on the evidence presented and Department of Justice guidelines around prosecuting a sitting president.
The Mueller report makes it clear that Trump was not exonerated but it simply found insufficient criminal evidence to prosecute.
The Judiciary Committee hopes to show that if any other American had engaged in the same conduct as Trump did as detailed in the 400-plus page Mueller report, they would be charged for obstruction of justice.
Democratic lawmakers plan to highlight at least five instances they believe clearly show Trump committed a crime, the staffers said.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will highlight these actions by Trump as detailed in the report: Repeatedly directing his then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller; telling McGahn to deny that he had been ordered to fire Mueller; asking former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation to exclude the president; telling Lewandowski to let Sessions know that he’s fired if he doesn’t meet with Lewandowski; and potential witness tampering with Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.
“Mr. McGahn is very much on our mind as you’ll also see at the hearing,” a staffer said.
Under fire from U.S. President Trump and ahead of a newly-announced trip to Israel and the West Bank, Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has introduced a resolution championing the right to participate in…
Omar, and America wrestle the scourge of a racist President
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar proposed a resolution this week supporting the right to boycott Israel, likening the boycott of the Jewish state to boycotts of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
Omar, and America wrestle the scourge of a racist President
Omar’s resolution seeks to push back against U.S. laws banning the boycott of Israel and affirms the right of Americans to organize boycotts of foreign countries if they so wish.
While the resolution doesn’t explicitly name Israel or the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, she told media outlets that the resolution concerns the Jewish state.
Trump’s WWE Event in the Oval Office Turned Into a Massive Self-Own
To impeach President Trump or not to impeach; and if, then when to impeach – The real question|CRIMSON TAZVINZWA||
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d … ,
the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of th’unworthy takes//WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE(from Hamlet, spoken by Hamlet)
Going out of tested and tried time
It’s been done this way before, it worked, therefore it should work this time as well for nothing has changed; all elements still equal and constant. There is no reason for doubt whatsoever.
They tried it on us before remember – during president Bill Clinton ‘impeachment in 1990s; it spectacularly backfired and exploded into their face didn’t it; meaning the ‘Grand Old Party’ (GOP); therefore it is pretty much the same, outcomewise, politically – better off avoded like a skunk – to avoid de javu.
Who said? Sounds like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argument.
It is just that politics, morality and ethics aren’t good company.
Trump’s accountants MUST turn over his financial records, federal judge rules – prompting fury from president who bashes ‘crazy’ ruling and promises to appeal//Crimson Tazvinzwa
A United States federal Judge has sided with House Democrats on Subpoena, Orders President Trump’s Former Accountants to turn over financial records.
Judge Amit Mehta sided with a Democratic-controlled congressional committee on Monday, ordering President Trump’s accounting firm to comply with a subpoena and turn over his long-sought financial records.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even withoutformally opening an impeachment inquiry,” Judge Mehta wrote in a lengthy opinion Monday afternoon.
Last Tuesday, federal judge Mehta heard oral arguments on whether Mazars LLP must comply with the House Oversight Committee’s demand.
Mehta said at the time that financial records from Trump’s long-time accounting firm would be part of a ‘proper subject of investigation’ by Congress, appearing to side with Democratic lawmakers seeking more oversight of the president.
It was the first time a federal court had waded into the tussle about how far Congress can go in probing Trump and his business affairs.
Trump’s challenge of the Mazars subpoena was his first effort to quash the multiple House inquiries.
President Trump is also sued over subpoenas for his financial records sent to Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp.
Some legal experts have said Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to succeed. They believe Congress has broad power to issue subpoenas as long as requested documents can help it legislate, and that courts are reluctant to second-guess its motivations.