New poll shows that majority of Republicans have no interest in seeing a woman become President. Ever!

And this surprises you?

Courtesy of Newsweek: 

Asked if they'd see a woman president in their lifetime, 20 percent of respondents said they "definitely will," while 43 percent said they "probably will." A total of 63 percent believed they would likely see a female president before they die. 

YouGov also asked, "Do you personally hope that the United States elects a woman president of the United States in your lifetime, or not?" Sixty-six percent of all respondents said yes, while 34 percent said no.

A comfortable majority of Republicans—59 percent—responded no, they don't hope to see a woman president in their lifetime, according to YouGov. In comparison, 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents responded that yes, they hoped to see a woman president before they died.

Well gee perhaps it wasn't Hillary's politics that made the Republicans hate her so much, but rather her lack of a penis.

Instead of having a Vajayjay running the country they looked for the very embodiment of a dick.

And that boys and girls is how you get this guy.

The House Intelligence Committee led by Devin Nunes released the report on their Russia "investigation" yesterday, and guess what? No collusion!

Courtesy of CNN: 

The House Intelligence Committee on Friday released a redacted version of the Republican report on the committee's year-long Russia investigation, in which GOP members say they found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and disputed the intelligence community's assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to help elect Donald Trump. 

The committee released the report with redactions from the intelligence community, along with a redacted Democratic dissent. saying collusion exists and that there were key aspects of the probe Republicans failed to investigate. 

The report's release marks the conclusion of a yearlong committee investigation that devolved into a partisan brawl between Democrats and Republicans, fighting over the decision by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to step aside from the probe, the subpoenas that were and were not issued and dueling memos over a surveillance warrant for a former Trump campaign adviser.

The committee ended its investigation into Russia's 2016 election meddling last month, concluding they found no evidence that Trump's team had colluded with Russians. 

"We found no evidence of collusion, and so we found perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings," (Rep. Mike) Conaway said when they submitted their report for declassification.

Of course Trump was also quick to jump on this. 

Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. “No evidence” that the Trump Campaign “colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.” Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia- Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2018

However anybody who actually thought this Devin Nunes led investigation was interested in getting to the truth must have their head shoved so far up their ass that they can watch their food digest.

And as the Democrats on that committee point out, the investigation was nowhere near complete.

Courtesy of WaPo:  

The GOP report does address that Trump Tower meeting, allowing that it showed “poor judgment” on the part of the Trump campaign. As we learned from Trump Jr.’s emails, those top Trump campaign officials went to the meeting in the full expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton, supplied by the Russian government. But the GOP report brushes this off, concluding there was “no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.”

But the Democratic response fills in some extremely important context — and it may involve the president himself, though we cannot know one way or the other right now. 

According to the Democratic response, right after Trump Jr. set up the specifics of the meeting, he had two calls with a number in Russia belonging to Emin Agalarov. Between those two calls, the Democratic response recounts, Trump Jr. received a third call from a blocked number. Who might it have been? 

Democrats wanted to find out, but Republicans blocked it from happening, according to the Democrats’ response. 

“We sought to determine whether that number belonged to the president, because we also ascertained that then-candidate Trump used a blocked number,” Schiff said during our interview. “That would tell us whether Don Jr. sought his father’s permission to take the meeting, and [whether] that was the purpose of that call.” 

Schiff added that Democrats asked Republicans to subpoena phone records to determine whose number it was, but Republicans “refused,” Schiff said. “They didn’t want to know whether he had informed his father and sought his permission to take that meeting with the Russians.”

Okay exactly WHY would the Republicans stop the Democrats from accessing those phone records unless they already knew to whom the blocked number belonged?

But do you know who probably already has that information?

Robert Mueller that's who.

This whole House Intelligence Committee "investigation" was nothing but a distraction to keep the public from focusing on the real investigation which is ACTUALLY looking for the truth.

And that truth is coming, whether Donald Trump and Devin Nunes want it to or not.

Devin Nunes is investigating the State Department because he cannot follow a simple narrative.

Courtesy of Fox Business: 

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Sunday his review of FBI and Justice Department “electronic communication” documents shows no intelligence was used to begin the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. 

“We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.” 

The California Republican said he is now investigating the State Department due to signs of “major irregularities,” in an effort to figure out how information about former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos – who reportedly met with a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and Britain’s MI6 in London in 2016 – was obtained by the FBI. 

So if Nunes would bother reading the New York Times he would know exactly how the FBI found out about Papadopoulos connections with the Russian Cambridge professor:

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton. 

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign. 

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role. 

Okay so yes there was "official intelligence" communicated from the Australian intelligence services to our own FBI.

And as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Nunes HAS to know this.

So WTF?

Yesterday Nunes also suggested the DNC's decision to sue the Trump Campaign, the Russians, and Wikileaks was nothing more than a fundraising scheme, and that they should actually be suing themselves.

Courtesy of the Washington Examiner:  

"This is nothing more than a scam to keep their base fired up," Nunes, who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said during an interview Saturday with Fox News' Judge Jeanine Pirro.

"This is about the extreme left, the socialist left, wanting to never accept that the president of the United States was rightfully and duly elected, carried a number of states that nobody expected him to carry," the congressman said. "So this is a fundraising scheme. It's nothing more, nothing less. It's a fundraising scheme because the Democrats are out of money, and that's what this is about."

The lawsuit Nunes was asked to comment on alleges a conspiracy between the trio to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign in order to get Donald Trump elected. The DNC's complaint was filed Friday in a federal district court in Manhattan, N.Y. 

Nunes started out his answer quipping, "Well, they ought to be suing themselves." 

"They are the ones that colluded with the Russians. So they're the ones that have an FEC violation, they didn't report that they were paying Fusion GPS, right? That they were digging up dirt on the trump campaign. None of that was reported, so they ought to be suing themselves. This is nothing more than a scam to keep their base fired up."

The "extreme left?"

The "socialist left?"

If that he who is identifying as those never wanting to accept Donald Trump as their president then I think that about 70% of the country is now identified as the "extreme socialist left."

And if true that sounds pretty good for the Democrats heading into the 2018 election cycle.

As the midterms approach Republicans retreat from all things Obamacare.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Republicans are retreating from calls to repeal ObamaCare ahead of this year’s midterm elections. 

Less than a year after the GOP gave up on its legislative effort to repeal the law, Democrats are going on offense on this issue, attacking Republicans for their votes as they hope to retake the House majority.

ObamaCare’s favorability in polls has improved since the repeal push last year, with more now favoring the law than not. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in March found that 50 percent of the public favors the law, while 43 percent holds an unfavorable view. 

GOP strategist Ford O’Connell said the political winds have shifted on the issue, turning ObamaCare into a subject Democrats want to tout and many Republicans want to duck. 

“I don’t think it’s seen as a winning issue,” he said. “It’s also an issue that tends to fire up the Democratic base more so than the Republican base.”

I KNEW this was going to happen eventually.

Now the Democrats can run on improving Obamacare so that it better serves their constituents, while the Republicans have to pretend that they never even heard of the Affordable Care Act.

Sadly for the GOP their past votes are just the kind of ammunition that can be used to blow their campaigns out of the water.

I think this, plus the changing debate on guns, added to the GOP's ties to Donald Trump, signal HUGE victories for the Democrats moving forward.

A former GOP donor is using his tax cut money to fund Democrats.

Seth Klarman

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

A major GOP donor is jumping ship and now he’s contributing to Democratic candidates in hopes of flipping the House of Representatives and/or the Senate in this year’s midterm elections. 

Seth Klarman, the billionaire CEO of the Baupost Group who the Economist once dubbed “The Oracle of Boston,” called out Republicans for failing to keep President Donald Trump in check. 

“The Republicans in Congress have failed to hold the president accountable and have abandoned their historic beliefs and values,” Klarman told the Boston Globe. “For the good of the country, the Democrats must take back one or both houses of Congress.” 

Klarman, an independent who donated more than $7 million to GOP candidates during the presidency of Barack Obama, has now cut checks to Democrats in 56 House races and 22 Senate elections, the newspaper reported. 

“I received a tax cut I neither need nor want. I’m choosing to invest it to fight the administration’s flawed policies and to elect Democrats to the Senate and House of Representatives,” Klarman said. 

Klarman also donated $2 million to nonprofits backing core Democratic issues, including gun control and the environment, the Globe reported.

Boy Donald Trump really IS good at fundraising.

Just look how much he is raising for the Democrats.

When people talk about Donald Trump's legacy, I am hoping that his number one achievement will be the total destruction of the Republican party as we know it today.

Senate Democrats say they can find NO credible evidence that EPA chief Scott Pruitt received threats that justify his unprecedented security expenses.

Courtesy of the AP:  

Confidential security assessments in the Environmental Protection Agency show no evidence of specific, credible, physical threats against Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite claims that an “unprecedented” number of death threats justify his outsized security spending, according to a review by Senate Democrats. 

Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote in a letter Tuesday that they have reviewed security assessments describing 16 purported threats against Pruitt. They include public protests, criticism of Pruitt’s policies and other activities protected by the First Amendment. 

The letter from Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island urged the committee’s Republican chairman to begin oversight hearings into Pruitt’s unusual security precautions. 

The Associated Press reported Friday that EPA has spent about $3 million on Pruitt’s security measures, which included flying first-class and using a full-time security detail of 20 armed officers.

Here are some of the "threats" that have been identified by HuffPo:

Here are some alleged threats against Pruitt that were investigated, according to reports: 

― The EPA inspector general in March 2017 investigated a postcard sent to the EPA that said: “Get out while you still can, Scott,” “You ignorant fuck,” and “You are evil incarnite,” according to a report obtained by E&E. EPA investigators discussed the message with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. But they couldn’t identify the author and concluded the message “lacked a clear threat.”

 ― Another postcard included “an implied threat that contained obscene language,” Sullivan told E&E. “It was not a direct threat.” The U.S. attorney’s office declined to prosecute, and the writer of the message apologized when contacted by federal officials, said Sullivan. 

― “Threatening tweets” against Pruitt and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were investigated in April 2017. The writer told investigators he wrote the “flippant comments” while drinking and watching “The Rachel Maddow Show,” and had no intention of hurting anyone. He apologized, and a U.S. attorney’s office declined to press charges. 

― The EPA launched a criminal probe in April 2017 into two female protesters who interrupted a speech by Pruitt. Officials submitted information for misdemeanor charges, but no action was taken. 

― The head of the EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement told Politico in February that Pruitt’s safety was threatened when people yelled obscenities at him.

Jesus, I never realized it before but perhaps I need a bullet proof desk, because I have received way more aggressive threats than these.

By the way as it turns out Pruitt's predecessor, Gina McCarthy, received some ACTUAL threats of harm.

One of which said, “We will hurt you and your family.”

And yet she did not even bother to ask for a bullet proof desk, or even around the clock security.

Go figure. 

Republicans were a no show at gun control town halls around the country organized by the Parkland students.

.@BarbaraComstock refused her invitation, so gun violence prevention group (and anti-Comstockers) @GaysXGunsDC showed up in her place.

“Smile and say ‘NRA!’” pic.twitter.com/HrBNLTIiM3

— Kara Voght (@karavoght) April 7, 2018

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

The organizers of last month’s March for Our Lives have taken their movement to town halls across the country and invited congressional lawmakers—who have returned to their districts for a two-week recess—to discuss action on gun control. According to the Town Hall Project, more than 130 of these meetings are taking place, with most of the events happening on Saturday. 

Though invited, no Republicans appeared at any town halls, and many of the forums featured empty chairs to symbolize their absences. 

Mother Jones‘ Kara Voght attended the town hall at Virginia’s 10th congressional district, where every Democratic candidate seeking to unseat Republican incumbent Rep. Barbara Comstock showed up to discuss gun legislation. Comstock, unsurprisingly, refused to attend.

In town hall after town hall the Democratic candidates showed up in force, while nary a Republican was spotted anywhere. 

Thank you @SenWarren @RepKClark @RepDavidLinsky for talking to students today about #GunContolNow #THFOL #TownHallForOurLives #mapoli pic.twitter.com/XO9nj8F5J2

— doylemama (@doylemama) April 7, 2018

This is an empty chair.
If @RepChrisCollins had made time to listen to his constituents, he could have sat here and explained his positions on gun violence. Instead, he ignored the student organizers, and called them names. #TownHallForOurLives #NeverAgain pic.twitter.com/UeQcxYGx3t

— Amy Ludwig VanDerwater (@amylvpoemfarm) April 7, 2018

Thank you Congresswomen @NydiaVelazquez and @RepMaloney for hosting the#NYC #TownHallForOurLives. It was an honor to join the other panelists and represent @MomsDemand at this student moderated event to say #EnoughIsEnough pic.twitter.com/6NgTSEVBdx

— @Solluna (@Solluna36541375) April 7, 2018

I know that the Republicans are praying that this is a passing fad and that gun control will not figure prominently in the next election cycle, but I do not think they have been listening to the young people for whom school safety and gun control are taking center stage.

This should help to keep things straight.

A little simplistic, but accurate overall.

Wait, people still interview Sarah Palin?

Courtesy of Fox News Insider:

The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate said she sees "hypocritical double standards" when it comes to the left's push for more gun control measures. 

She said all Americans have the constitutional right to protect themselves and their families in the same way celebrities and politicians are protected. 

"We have every right, we have a God-given right that’s codified in our Bill of Rights to protect ourselves and to protect our property and our families. It’s not just a select few that government will choose who gets to be protected. The movie stars, the politicians in D.C., those in a courthouse, no. The Bill of Rights does apply to every single citizen of the U.S.," she said. 

Responding to President Trump's renewed calls for border security, including using U.S. troops, Palin said it's "obvious" why Democrats are opposed. 

"I think that they just fear that Americans aren’t gonna vote Democrat, so by golly they’ll import people who will," she said. 

Palin said those in favor of "globalization" want cheap labor and Americans are getting "sick of it." 

"It comes back to either supporting the rule of law, our legal immigration system, or supporting and incentivizing illegal immigration with no expectation of assimilating any of the people into our culture or anything else. It’s really whack. People are really sick of it," she said. 

It's really whack?

Do you know what else is "really whack?" The fact that Sarah Palin does not understand that you cannot "import" people who will vote the Democratic ticket because they are not yet US citizens.

Unless of course Palin buys into that conspiracy theory that claims the 3 million votes that Hillary Clinton beat Trump by in the popular vote were cast by illegal aliens.

But that's just crazy, right?

Of course the idea that ANYONE would seek an opinion about ANYTHING from this whack-a-doodle has been is equally crazy.

Wisconsin Scott Walker is running scared from the Blue Wave.

Courtesy of CNN: 

On Tuesday night, it happened again. 

Democrat Patty Schachtner beat Republican Adam Jarchow for a western Wisconsin state Senate seat that had been held by a Republican since 2000 and in a district that President Donald Trump won handily in 2016. 

Schachtner's win marked the first Republican-to-Democrat switch at the state legislative level of 2018 but it is the 34th state legislative seat pickup for Democrats since the start of 2017. That trend is beginning to rightly alarm smart Republicans.

I don't know if you could actually put Scott Walker in the smart category, but he is certainly deep into the alarmed category.

Tonight’s results show we are at risk of a #BlueWave in WI. The Far Left is driven by anger & hatred -- we must counter it with optimism & organization. Let’s share our positive story with voters & win in November.

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) April 4, 2018

Big government special interests flooded Wisconsin with distorted facts & misinformation. Next, they'll target me and work to undo our bold reforms. We need to keep moving #WIForward & make sure a #BlueWave of outside special interest money doesn’t take us backward.

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) April 4, 2018

Damn! You can almost smell the panic.

Walker's policy decisions have been devastating for the people of Wisconsin, and he was so afraid of this voters that he tried to change the law to get out of holding two special elections.

So yes, he has every reason to fear the Blue Wave.

Hey, maybe he IS in the smart category.

Thousands register to vote at March For Our Lives rallies.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

At least 4,000 people registered to vote on Saturday at "March for Our Lives" protests across the United States, Reuters reports. 

According to Reuters, at least 4,000 people had registered to vote by 8:30 p.m., with the number of those who signed up growing as more cities concluded their sister marches and reported registration totals. 

Survivors of the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., have made voter turnout a primary focus of their calls to action. 

"March for Our Lives" rallies across the country aimed to honor the memory of the 17 people who were killed in last month's shooting and show lawmakers the widespread support for gun control. Many speakers called on people to vote in their local and national elections to support candidates who will address gun violence.

My guess is that this 4,000 number is only the very beginning.

This is why these marches have panicked the conservatives so much.

It is not only that it is dramatically changing the gun law debate, it is that they are also recruiting new voters for the 2018/2020 elections. 

And how many of these new voters do we really think are planning to vote Republican?

Rick Santorum suggests that the Parkland students would be better served learning CPR to save gunshot victims than advocating for more comprehensive gun laws.

Stupidity starts aroung the 4:15 mark.)

Courtesy of Media Matters:  

RICK SANTORUM (CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR): Yeah, I mean this is the bottom line. Is this a political effort? Is this a political movement? It very well may be, and that's fine. If the organizers, people who certainly supported it, the Hollywood elites and the liberal billionaires who funded this, it's all about politics. Is this really all about politics or is it all about keeping our schools safe? Because if it is about keeping our schools safe, then we have to have a much broader discussion than the discussion that's going on right now. How about kids, instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that, when there is violent shooter, that you can actually respond to that. 

BRIANNA KEILAR (ANCHOR): But how are they looking at other people to -- I would ask you, they took action. 

SANTORUM: Yeah, they took action to ask someone to pass a law. They didn't take action to say, “How do I, as an individual, deal with this problem? How am I going to do something about stopping bullying within my own community? What am I going to do to actually help respond to a shooter? What am I going to do -- those are the kinds of things where you can take it internally and say, here's how I'm going to deal with this, here's how I'm going to help the situation, instead of going and protesting and saying, oh, someone else needs to pass a law to protect me.

 [...] 

SANTORUM: I'm proud of them, but I think everyone should be responsible and deal with the problems that we have to confront in our lives. And ignoring those problems and saying they're not going to come to me, and saying some phony gun law is going to solve it, phony gun laws don't solve these problems. That's what we found out.

You know Rick Santorum has been off my radar for quite some time now, so I think I more or less forgot was an incredible sleaze ball he is.

But I am all back up to speed now, that is for damn sure.

During that incredible March For Our Lives rally on Saturday, I kept hearing the young people making the argument that this is not a Democrat vs Republican, Liberal VS Conservative, issue.

I understand why they think that way, I remember when I did as well.

But that is simply not the case anymore.

The conservatives are dug in on the gun issue, just like they are on the abortion issue, and there is simply no middle ground that remains to have an actual honest conversation about regulating access to guns.

The ONLY way that we can do anything significant about gun deaths in this country is to vote out as many Republicans as possible and replace them with Democrats who are all in for making our schools, our houses of worship, and our movie theaters safe for children and families to attend without fear of death by gun violence.

That may sound incredibly partisan of me, but simply put those are the facts as they currently exist.

Perhaps after getting thrashed on this issue for a couple of election cycles the Republicans will see that it no longer serves them to worship at the altar of the NRA, but until that time their presence in the political system needs to be greatly minimized.

New NBC poll shows that Democrats have a 10 point lead going into 2018, while Donald Trump's numbers have ticked up four points. Wait, what?

Courtesy of NBC News:  

Democrats enjoy a 10-point advantage over Republicans in congressional preference for the 2018 midterm elections, even as President Donald Trump's job approval rating has ticked up, the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds. 

Fifty percent of registered voters say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, while 40 percent want a GOP-controlled one. 

That double-digit lead — typically a sign of strong Democratic performance for the upcoming election — is up from the party's 6-point edge in January's NBC/WSJ poll, which was 49 percent to 43 percent, though the change is within the poll's margin of error.

That falls in line with other polling that shows the Democrats with a substantial lead going into the 2018 election.

But then there is this: 

Meanwhile, the NBC/WSJ polls finds that Trump's approval rating stands at 43 percent among all Americans — up four points from January. 

Fifty-three percent of adults say they disapprove of the president’s job, down from 57 percent two months ago. 

The improvement for Trump comes from Republican respondents (who went from 78 percent approve in January to 84 percent this month), white men (52 percent to 59 percent) and independents (33 percent to 45 percent).

Man am I embarrassed to be a white man some days.

I am trying to work it out in my head exactly what Trump has done in the last month or so that could have improved his image even by four points.

Could it be his blatant attacks on our Justice Department?

The constant turnover in his White House?

Or was it the fact that he has definitely been outed as banging a porn star right after his wife gave birth to his last child, and his attempts to keep her quiet?

Yeah, I simply don't get it.

But who cares? Because once we get enough Democrats into office we can shut his ass down hard!

Bill Maher has a message for Democrats and I think we need to listen.

I think that sometimes Bill Maher can be a little strident, and I certainly do not agree with him on all issues.

But his defense of Nancy Pelosi here is spot on.

And his call for Democrats to start showing some real balls goes right along with my thinking these last several years as well.

I always thought that our first Democratic Senator in decades, Mark Begich, could actually have won a second term if he had only acted more like Congressman for life Don Young.

I do not mean ideologically of course, but when people criticize Don Young he says "fuck you!"

And I don't mean that figuratively.

Republicans in Alaska, and most other places in the country, are arrogant assholes, and yet they keep getting reelected because the voting public takes that for confident leadership.

Alaska politicians Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski, and Don Young were, and some still are, incredibly arrogant assholes who never apologized for ANYTHING.

If Democrats want to win elections they may not have to be actual assholes, but they do have to have the confidence of their values, and an unapologetic stand on the issues they believe in. 

This upcoming blue wave may get a lot of Democrats into office, but if they want to stay there they better learn to stand defiant against bullshit attacks and attempts to paint them as wishy washy. 

A day after House Republicans declare that the Russia investigation is over and Trump is exonerated, House Democrats say "Tut tut, not so fast."

Courtesy of CNBC: 

Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday they would keep investigating Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, despite a decision by Republicans on the panel to shut down the probe. 

"We are going to do our best to continue our work. There are individuals who want to cooperate with our committee and share information, and will continue to do so," said representative Adam Schiff, the committee's top Democrat. 

"We will be putting together a report that will set out for the country what evidence we have seen to date," he said.

The Democrats also released a 22-page status report on the investigation, listing lines of inquiry they feel should be pursued and more than 30 witnesses the committee has still not interviewed. 

They included Reince Priebus, a former Trump White House chief of staff, and former White House spokesman Sean Spicer, as well as Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who participated in a June 2016 meeting with Trump's son Donald Jr. and other close Trump associates. 

Among the concerns in the status report were "credible allegations as to the use of Trump properties to launder money by Russian oligarchs, criminals, and regime cronies." 

It also questioned whether "candidate Trump's financial exposure via Deutsche Bank or other private loans constituted a point of leverage that Russia may have exploited and may still be using?" 

The report said the committee should request related documents and hear testimony from Deutsche Bank, "via subpoena if necessary," to evaluate such allegations.

I am not sure how much the Democrats on his committee can accomplish without support from the Republicans, but let's face it they never really had it to begin with.

However the findings of the Republicans that there was no credible evidence that the Russians had developed a preference for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton did not go down well even with some House Republicans.

Including Trey "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" Gowdy.

Courtesy of Politico:  

A top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee distanced himself Tuesday from one of the panel's most explosive findings in its Russia investigation — that the FBI, CIA and NSA overplayed their hand when they declared Russia preferred a Donald Trump victory in the 2016 election. 

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said that the evidence gathered by the committee clearly showed Russia's disdain for Trump's rival, Hillary Clinton, and was "motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her Presidency had she prevailed."

I never really had any faith that this committee would find anything worthwhile anyhow, not with Trump lapdog Devin Nunes undermining the investigation. 

And I am not super stoked about the Senate investigation either. 

No the smart money is on Robert Mueller.

Mueller is laser focused on getting to the truth, and I have every confidence that he will do that very thing.

New Ted Cruz campaign ad mocks his opponent for changing his name. Only one problem.

FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert O’Rourke, to Texas voters.

Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018

Courtesy of CNN: 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's first shot at his expected Democratic challenger, Rep. Beto O'Rourke? Mocking his name. 

As Tuesday's primaries were closing, Cruz's campaign released a 60-second radio ad that was a country music jingle prodding O'Rourke for going by "Beto" rather than "Robert." 

"Liberal Robert wanted to fit in, so he changed his name to Beto and hid it with a grin," the song says.

O'Rourke said he's gone by "Beto" since he was born. 

"My parents have called me Beto from day one, and it's just -- it's kind of a nickname for Robert in El Paso. It just stuck," he said in a brief phone interview Tuesday night.

And here's proof. 

lol Ted Cruz pic.twitter.com/kr3be1Cv5C

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) March 7, 2018

By the way, Ted Cruz's real name is Rafael Cruz.

He adopted the name "Ted" to "fit in."

But hey, catchy tune. That should really help in the general election.

California Democratic party declines to endorse Senator Dianne Feinstein in her reelection bid.

Courtesy of Politico: 

In a sharp rebuke to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party has declined to endorse the state’s own senior senator in her bid for reelection. 

Riven by conflict between progressive and more moderate forces at the state party’s annual convention here, delegates favored Feinstein’s progressive rival, state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein by a vote of 54 percent to 37 percent, according to results announced Sunday. 

Neither candidate reached the 60 percent threshold required to receive the party endorsement for 2018. But the snubbing of Feinstein led de León to claim a victory for his struggling campaign. 

“The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” de León said in a prepared statement. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.”

I'm a little concerned about this.

Dianne Feinstein has been in the Senate since 1992.

Yes she is part of the "establishment" but she is also a known quantity with a lot of support in her state.That means if she were to run for reelection, especially while riding the "blue wave," there is an almost certain victory.

If this Kevin de Leon guy, who may be an excellent candidate, wins the primary there is an increased possibility that something heretofore unknown in his background may be discovered and then he could be vulnerable in the general.

The saying "As California goes, so goes America" could bite us in the ass if we start seeing other safe seats suddenly challenged by more ideologically "pure" liberals who cannot win the general election.

Remember that is what has been happening with the conservatives, and they are losing seats right and left.

Look I want strong progressives in as many seats as possible, but I am also a pragmatist, and I know that if we start applying these purity tests to our sitting members of Congress and the Senate, we might purify ourselves right back to an overwhelming Republican majority in both houses.

So yesterday the memo from the House Intelligence Committee Democrats was finally released, and yes it essentially refutes every false claim made in the Republican memo.

The Democratic memo is out. It claims that the Nunes memo was a “transparent effort to undermine” DOJ and FBI and special counsel’s probe. https://t.co/ozrui1yKii pic.twitter.com/JzzuNHiqMq

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 24, 2018

So here is the pdf of the memo if you want to read it for yourself.

But here is what we have essentially learned:

• Steele Dossier played NO role in opening the Carter Page investigation. They began their investigation prior to even receiving it. 
• The DOJ did in fact inform the court of the origin of the Steele Dossier. 
• They accuse Nunes of deliberately misrepresenting the underlying FISA Warrant intelligence. 
• Four different judge's approved FISA warrants including judge's appointed by Bush and Reagan. Multiple DOJ officials also approved the applications prior to the court even seeing them including Trump appointees Rosenstein and Boente. 
• They actually started listening to Page after he left Trump campaign so the idea they were watching him to spy on Trump is absurd. 
• Page has a long history with Russia going back to 2004 and was being actively investigated once before already in 2013. The FBI had even interviewed him in 2016 again prior to receiving the Steele Dossier. The Steele dossier was referenced in the application as corroboration of certain things, and not to independently demonstrate. 
• A bunch of blacked out additional evidence with a bit in the middle noting Page lied to the HIC in his testimony in 2017 about meeting with Russian officials. 
• It included the footnote that discusses the Steele dossier source which SPECIFICALLY STATES ..."The FBI speculates the the unidentified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." Candidate 1 is Trump I believe, edit I previously thought Person 1 was Steele, this is the person coordinating with Steele. Steele is Source #1. 
• DOJ timely informed the court when the FBI fired Steele and why. 
• The attacks on Bruce Ohr for knowing Steele/and his wife working for Fusion GPS are 100% baseless. He was not involved in the FISA process and disclosed his relationships in November 2016. 

Basically Nunes and Gowdy lied whole cloth that the FISA warrant was primarily based on a news article and the Steele Dossier. Those were in fact the least used and most minor pieces of evidence and they picked them out specifically for that reason to discredit the investigation and lied about their use.

That last part I think we all essentially recognized from the get go.

Nunes is either a Russian agent himself, or somehow compromised, and Gowdy is just a conspiracy theory chasing POS.

Here were the final few paragraphs from the New York Times write up on this memo: 

The wiretap of Mr. Page generated useful intelligence. 

When the Justice Department repeatedly sought the court’s permission to renew the surveillance of Mr. Page, the Democratic memo said, it cited new information it was gathering through the wiretap. 

“The court-approved surveillance of Page allowed F.B.I. to collect valuable intelligence,” the Democratic memo said. It asserted that the repeated renewals “demonstrate that the F.B.I. collected important investigative information and leads by conducting court-approved surveillance.” 

What that intelligence was, however, was redacted.

The memo released by the Republicans of course suggested that the FISA warrants issued on Carter Page were illegal and unnecessary, and this memo completely refutes that argument.

What's more is that when Mueller releases his report on all of this, we are likely going to know what was learned through these warrants.

That means the House Republicans were counting on their memo derailing an investigation that they had to know would ultimately prove that they were running interference for Donald Trump.

Speaking of Donald Trump he was all over Twitter yesterday trying to refute the findings in this memo.

Mostly he was posting snippets from his insane conversation with Jeanine Pirro. But there were other attempts to discredit the memo as well,

Here was one such attempt being refuted in real time:

Holy moly. The @FoxNews anchor said "Congressman Schiff, he ARGUES the REPUBLICAN memo omitted and distorted key facts." Trump just deleted 5 words from the quote to allege the opposite meaning. https://t.co/UlSQUcc0bD

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) February 25, 2018

I think that kind of sums up Trump's pathetic attempts to save his ass.

Early voting in Texas sees large turnout for Democrats.

Courtesy of AP: 

Democrats in Texas are early voting in large numbers ahead of the first primary elections before the 2018 midterms, stoking party optimism that backlash to President Donald Trump won’t escape the biggest conservative state in the country. 

More Democrats have cast ballots than Republicans since early voting began this week in Texas, according to state election figures released Thursday, and turnout among Democrats is up 46 percent over the last midterm elections in 2014. For Republicans, meanwhile, turnout is basically flat. 

Trump won Texas by 9 points in 2016 and so dominant are Republicans that they haven’t lost a statewide race since 1994. Political strategists cautioned against reading too much into early turnout totals and said a relatively dull slate of GOP statewide primary races isn’t energizing Republican voters like four years ago. 

But the numbers still encouraged Democrats whose best hopes in Texas for 2018 are flipping a few congressional seats as Republicans defend their majorities in the House and Senate. GOP U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is also up for re-election but is a heavy favorite to win another term. 

“It definitely says there was a large number of Democrats who couldn’t wait to get out and vote,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University.

Democrats are killing it in the special elections around the country, so the idea that Texas is out of reach for Dems is not exactly a given.

Personally I would LOVE to see that mealy mouthed little POS Ted Cruz go down in flames.

Easily one of the most despicable individuals on the planet.

And he is behind in fundraising.

Democrats are now almost universally embracing the idea of single payer health care. Thanks Trump!

Courtesy of WaPo:

Today, the Center for American Progress released a single-payer health plan (or thereabouts), planting a significant marker in the evolution of the Democratic Party, and eventually perhaps the American health-care system. 

And we have President Trump and the Republicans to thank for it. 

CAP calls its plan “Medicare Extra For All.” That’s a little unwieldy but seems meant to distinguish it from “Medicare For All,” which is what Bernie Sanders called the plan he proposed in 2016 and what others have called for. It isn’t a true single-payer plan because it envisions a continued role for private insurance. But it greatly expands government coverage, both for anyone who doesn’t have insurance and, critically, anyone who simply would prefer the government’s plan.

It’s significant that this plan is coming from the heart of the Democratic establishment, a think tank that is the closest thing to a Democratic government-in-exile. When it has officially put its imprimatur on a sort-of single-payer health plan, that means the general principle is now all but consensus among Democrats, something that wasn’t true even a year ago. 

While this evolution has been in-process for a while, the fact is that as of now, the Democratic Party is converging on consensus around the goal of universal coverage with a much stronger role for government. You may recall that in the last presidential election, the party’s candidate wasn’t willing to go that far. Today, nearly every Democrat considering a run for the White House in 2020 has endorsed the idea of universal coverage.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the ass if we ended up with an assault gun ban, universal health care, and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, not BECAUSE of Donald Trump, but in spite of him?

Could happen. 

That could make him both the worst president in history, but with one of the most consequential presidencies.

Isn't politics weird sometimes?