If it was the ad by Trump’s campaign, the one about “the swamp hate me” attacking Biden and Pelosi (it’s new enough to mention impeachment) then I saw it too. Came on during the Cowboys/Packers game. It’ll likely change everyone’s mind. 
I get it.
You’re in the pocket of Big Travel Agency.
I’m seeing ads for both Trump and Matt Bevin (I live in Kentucky) playing during commercial breaks on Hulu, and in-between levels of various games on my phone.
Yeah, but don’t forget:
“Even lying squirrels are blind beaver-snakes twice an acorn.”
Also, can we finally retire the ridiculous adding of “-gate” to name any government scandal? In the tradition of Dan Savage and “Santorum” I hereby decree that this scandal shall be called “Ukrainetrump” and from this point forward, all scandals shall be named in this manner.
Usage guide: if, for example, another scandal is centered on the Watergate apartments in DC the ensuing hullabaloo shall be dubbed “Watergate-trump” or possibly “Water-trump” but never just “Watergate” or even “Watergate-gate” although the last one is cute.
I’m actually kinda serious about this. I would love to see it stick.
There were several Trumpy ads during NBC Sunday Night Football, too.
Sure, he might running a primary and general campaign simultaneously, but…so what? He’s hitting the ropes right now in both of those campaigns. The right is giving him the Hillary treatment months too soon if he’s trying to win this thing. And tested? He failed the last two times he ran for nomination. Which is exactly why I kind of want to shake Biden supporters by the shoulders.
Just because Trump thinks Biden is the man to beat him, that doesn’t mean Dems must treat that as evidence of something important and vote accordingly. Trump is a stupid, misogynistic, racist narcissist, declining into senility. Of course he’s going to feel threatened by another old white man who has establishment credentials. He thinks everyone (who matters) thinks like he does because he’s the king of projection. That’s as deep as he goes.
I feel you. Objectively speaking, it is ridiculous. But appending -gate to political scandals is an American tradition at this point. 100 years from now, people are still probably going to be doing it. There is something cool about that to me.
NY Times op-ed writer William Safire started the tradition with “Lancegate” — named after Carter’s budget director Bert Lance — In 1977.
There has never been anything cool about William Safire. The guy wrote Spiro Agnew’s speeches, for chrissake.
I’m getting sick of pundits saying that Donald is the most corrupt president in modern history. True but unnecessarily restrictive. He is the most corrupt president EVER. Full stop. The dumbest EVER. The most evil EVER. Modern history my ass, it’s all of history.
Moscow Mitch says he’ll kill it in the Senate. That’s what he says now. After the House hearings, if 80%+ are in favor of conviction, they’ll convict.
Tax records being released … I wonder if anything there will impact public opinions as well.
Splitting hairs here: Taxes ordered by a judge to be released. (I’ll believe that they’re being released when they are released. 
)
Given that the issue deals with the extent of executive power, I imagine this will be going to the Supreme Court.
I wonder how they’ll rule. Will they rule that the president has “absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind.”? Or will they just say that this is the case if the president is a Republican?
I mean will they say this out loud?
Harding and Grant do come close, but it isn’t a contest.
Probably.
Bush 2 (lied us into a war and justified torture, remember?) beats him IMHO, and so does Andrew “Trail of Tears” Jackson. He hasn’t killed nearly as many kids in his own camps.
Only for the sake of riling up his voter base (he’s up for re-election). But it’s out of his hands once the Chief Justice has been summoned.
That’s not my quote. I think it’s Max’s.
Ah, thanks. Not too bloody likely then.
Ahem.
“On Language”
Or maybe that was just for linguistic/etymology geeks like me.
For the record, I find this new Republican idea of pointing at Mr. Schiff entirely irrelevant and unconvincing. The only concern I might possibly have with Mr. Schiff’s handling of the investigation is whether he allowed the Republicans to ask questions during the closed session hearing. If true I would ask for another hearing, not close the investigation.
In my opinion, Mr. Schiff receiving a heads-up about a potential whistleblower, and advising said potential whistleblower to use the existing legal framework, is entirely acceptable and ethical conduct. In no way is this a valid reason to shut down the inquiry.
~Max