Nicole Wallace's Show Today Is So Far A Complete Disgrace

[Me.]

Everyone one on there today... NIcole's boyfriend Schmidt, Heilemen, Jolley, St Pierre are stomping the Dems and Nancy Pelosi into the ground because they're not proceeding fast enough to suit them. How dare they? Heileman said traitor trump is wrong but strong and the Dems are right but weak. The only one who hasn't is Joyce Vance.

How dare those Dems not having impeached already. Funny, but I didn't realize the Cons had agreed to convict the traitor.

And isn't it time MUeller came down from Mount Olympus or maybe he just doesn't care?

[HipChick]

1. Schmidt is back? Thought he was booted off MSNBC due to

the coffee man

[DeminPennswoods]

3. For some reason, Schmidt really annoys me

He comes off as especially smug. TBH, I think he and Haberman traded their integrity for WH access awhile ago.

[Eyeball_Kid]

127. Schmidt must have been lucky to get the Pulitzer.

He does get his facts wrong, and he's really lacking in his ability to provide meat at the pundit table. His act yesterday was especially depressing. Maybe he didn't get his candy stick licked by his favorite hostess. How sad.

[OnDoutside]

5. What's that about ? I thought he was dating Nicole ?

[Jane Austin]

95. Michael Schmidt, NYT reporter?

He's hardly Nicole's "boyfriend".

Now, Steve Schmidt, the one who joined the Starbuck's founder's campaign, was one of Nicole's best friends, dating from their time together on the McCain campaign.

They were both, if I remember correctly, also frozen out of McCain's funerals.

But it was Michael Schmidt whose dour presence graced Nicole's show today.

[lapucelle]

103. I think she means Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist. N/T

[Jane Austin]

109. Well, yes. But he wasn't

on her show today.

[OnDoutside]

116. Yes, THAT bundle of joy, Michael Schmidt, NYT reporter...Maybe he makes her laugh, in a Lyle

Lovett sorta way ? !!!!

MSNBC is becoming a hotbed of passion for Beltway nerds. Page Six has exclusively learned that the network’s Nicolle Wallace is divorcing her ambassador husband of 14 years and is dating New York Times writer Michael S. Schmidt, a regular guest on her show “Deadline: White House.”

In fact Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Schmidt, 35, is such a familiar face alongside Wallace, 47, both on air and off, that we’re told they have disclosed their romance to network chiefs, who were fine with it, just as they were when the co-anchors of their “Morning Joe” show, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, coupled up.

Wallace — George W. Bush’s former White House communications director, a senior adviser for the McCain-Palin campaign, a co-host of “The View” for a year until August 2015, and now chief political analyst for MSNBC and NBC News — has been married to lawyer and Bush-appointed US Ambassador to the United Nations Mark Wallace since 2005. He didn’t return e-mails seeking comment.

https://pagesix.com/2019/03/27/nicolle-wallace-and-msnbc-contributor-michael-schmidt-are-dating/

[Jane Austin]

117. Well, I guess I will have to eat my hat!

That seems like a complete mismatch to me.

She's very flirty with Heilman, so I could see that, but Michael Schmidt?

Yikes.

[OnDoutside]

118. Yes, I think we all thought herself and Heilemann were up to something. Donny Deutsch too !

[DeminPennswoods]

119. Yeah, she could do better, imho,

but she is does have a degree (from Berkley of all places) and a master's in communication. That gives them something in common, but 12 years is a prretty big age difference and unusual for the woman to be the older one.

Anyway, since they are reportedly dating, he should not be appearing on her show.

[Eyeball_Kid]

128. Wallace runs a great show...

but you're right. Schmidt's appearance constitutes a conflict of interest. Really, his absence wouldn't be missed. He doesn't add much to any conversation.

[DeminPennswoods]

131. Agreed

nt

[kentuck]

2. I disagree.

Me.

[Skittles]

78. ditto

[Atticus]

102. As do I. nt

[BeyondGeography]

4. Sorry

But they do have a point. It never made sense IMO for Pelosi to broadcast her obvious preference to avoid impeachment proceedings before the Mueller Report was even released. There is division in our ranks and Trump is pushing the envelope with apparent impunity.

And before you dump on me, I never thought I’d live to see the day where people like William Fucking Kristol and John Yoo were ahead of Democrat leadership on initiating impeachment proceedings against a Republican President. I don’t know if that should make me happy or sad.

[StarfishSaver]

6. It's easy for Bill Kristol and John Yoo to be ahead of Democratic leadership

They don't have to actually do anything but run their mouths.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Actually it does come at a price

They’re off the Republican island now. Took some political courage.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Neither of them made a huge sacrifice. Both be just fine

[Hortensis]

22. Same for all of them. When they're wrong, they point

to some comment made 8 months ago to cover their asses and pivot on the spot to pontificate with uninterrupted conviction on a new position.

[StarfishSaver]

40. True

For example, they were all dead wrong about Trump's for election - absolutely flat out dead wrong. But sure enough day after the election, there they sat just as big as you please pontificating about the next thing as if they were infallible experts on all things political, without even acknowledgement that they approven they didn't know what they were talking about.

[Hortensis]

107. Back in the Coki Roberts days,

I remember her and her group doing apologies and supposed self searchings after elections for being so terribly wrong maybe three times in a row. And that was the end of that and the change to the new model.

But looking back, I’d like to know why their groupthink told/got it so completely wrong, wrong like effectively all pollsters in 2016 or wrong like Fox?

[Hortensis]

26. Beyond, this "divided party" meme is an obvious RW lie.

You should not be believing it, and certainly not repeating something so obviously untrue.

Just look at the big Blue-Wave electorate in the midterms.
Look at our Democratic candidates and the voices of an already strongly engaged left in the polls,
Even look at our own little internal candidate poll.

Get it? A large majority of those on the left are united and committed around liberal ideals and goals.

As for the small, noisy, hostile faction that always fights the mainstream? The ones the RW amplifies to build this meme around? If they were numerous and competent enough to form even a small third party to attack us, they would. But they aren't and they never have been able to.

[Me.]

32. Aw Yes The War Within The Party

Jeremy Peters repeats that every time he's on and so do many of the so called know it alls.

[BeyondGeography]

38. Of course we agree on liberal ideals

How to handle the current crisis is where we’re scattered. Amash stepping forward has highlighted differences within the caucus on impeachment. They exist.

[Hortensis]

68. No. Disagreements among ignorant and anxious observers

on political forums over tactics -- notably NOT principles or big goals -- are not party division. And we're not in "array," either.

[BeyondGeography]

71. Rep Ciclline is calling for an impeachment inquiry if McGahn doesn't show

Talk to me after Nadler and Pelosi readily agree with him.

[StarfishSaver]

77. Is there something special about Rep. Cicilline that makes his opinion carry more weight

than any other Member, including the Speaker of the House and Judiciary Committee chairman (other than the fact that he agrees with you)?

[BeyondGeography]

80. He sits on the committee and this is the clearest call from Judiciary yet re launching an inquiry

Is there anything about that you find insignificant?

[Hortensis]

100. Please understand that this is something

their team is working on. Not us. It’s not our decision. Damned good thing because I can guarantee you we don’t know a fraction of what they do, not just complex processes but critical information. Remember information is power? No one is blabbing everything they know.

So we wait, and it’s worrying for all of us, we just respond to it differently. We have new positive news that that judge has ordered Deutschebank to comply with the congressional subpoenas to turn over Trump’s financial records.

[BeyondGeography]

101. We know a lot more now than we did a few hours ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosis-leadership-team-rebels-on-impeachment-presses-her-to-begin-an-inquiry/2019/05/20/263c11de-7b5b-11e9-a66c-d36e482aa873_story.html?utm_term=.9c718ffbe7f7

[Hortensis]

104. Yes, but still far less than others.

Encouraging news though.

[wryter2000]

64. As far as I'm concerned

John Yoo can keep his trap shut for the rest of his life. He gave up his humanity when he decided it was acceptable to torture a child in order to get information from the child's father.

I don't care how right he is about anything. He can STFU.

[spanone]

7. These are not trump supporters. They are concerned that the optics are 'trump is winning'.

Two months since the Mueller report came out.

Not a single witness.

Not a single piece of paper.

Democrats have little recourse except the courts.

trump has used the courts all his life and knows how to use them to his benefit.

[Me.]

19. Perhaps Heilman Missed The Part Where The Witnesses Have Been Subpoened

and now it has to go to the courts where they'll be asked if they've tried all options

[spanone]

21. trump and barr don't care. delay, delay, delay.

[Me.]

23. Of Course, That's Obvious And therein Is The Root Of The Problem

That's why the next step is the courts, or did Heilman expect they could send the Sergeant At Arms to make an arrest.

[spanone]

25. two months, any court cases filed?

[Me.]

30. Don't They First Have To Wait Until The Witness Defies A Subpoena?

[spanone]

39. Mnuchin defied a subpoena for tax returns. Barr defied a subpoena for unredacted Mueller report.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Do you know what the process is to enforce a subpoena once it's been defied?

[spanone]

50. Hold them in contempt.

What is the punishment for contempt of Congress?

On paper, defying a congressional subpoena for testimony or documents is a misdemeanor crime, punishable by one to 12 months in jail. But in practice, this law is generally toothless in disputes between Congress and the executive branch. Invoking prosecutorial discretion, the Justice Department can decline to charge an official who defies a subpoena at the president’s direction.

Can Congress enforce a contempt citation on its own?

In theory, yes, but this is outdated. Historically, Congress has exercised “inherent contempt” authority to detain recalcitrant witnesses until the end of its session. But Congress has not tried to use that authority since 1935. Congress lacks any prison for holding someone in long-term detention, and trying to use its limited security forces to arrest an executive branch official could provoke a dangerous standoff. While some lawmakers have talked about instead imposing a fine, there is no precedent for that, according to the Congressional Research Service, and it is not clear how the House could enforce that penalty.

What about going to court?

Congress could ask a federal judge to enforce its subpoena — and declare witnesses who defy any judicial order to provide the information to Congress in contempt of court. If the Justice Department declines to prosecute someone for contempt of court, judges can appoint special prosecutors to bring the case instead. Still, Mr. Trump could pre-emptively pardon such defendants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/subpoenas-trump-congress.html

[StarfishSaver]

55. Do you know what the process for issuing a contempt citation is

[spanone]

59. Look it up. I did.

[StarfishSaver]

65. I know what it is. Just wondering if other people do

[Me.]

53. You Are Correct

and as I understand it, those are headed for the court or sanctions

[wryter2000]

69. One decision handed down today

That Trump has to turn over his financial records.

Screaming that the Dems aren't doing anything doesn't produce any witnesses or evidence, either.

[spanone]

79. screaming?

[wryter2000]

83. Perhaps not your post

But I've seen plenty of "Impeachment now!!!" posts.

[True Blue American]

81. Yes!

Democrats are going through a legal process. It took 2 years to stop Nixon and John Mitchell.

[11 Bravo]

8. I'm hearing unrelenting attacks on Trump.

[Me.]

11. You Didn't See Heilman's Rant?

or Jolley kicking the Dems sayin that Amash was braver than Nancy?

[C_U_L8R]

29. I considered that tough love

Dems very much need to get it together and drive the message and process.

[Me.]

33. You Think They're Just Ho-Humming Their Way Through All Of This?

[C_U_L8R]

36. No. But they're not winning. Yet.

[Me.]

37. Yet Is The Key Word

[C_U_L8R]

42. And we're all cheering them on.

[Me.]

51. Most Of Us Anyway

[redstateblues]

91. Who will be the winner when the Senate won't convict?

[C_U_L8R]

92. At minimum, the American people need to know the truth.

If that sways the Senate... or the election... who knows. But it is the right thing to do. Kicking the can the road or giving up because Republicans... is so wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Because John Heilman railing on MSNBC is going to wake Nancy Plosi up

and get her to finally focus.

[C_U_L8R]

44. Yes.

[OnDoutside]

10. I disagree. They have a point. That said, I think House Dems are being deliberate because these

issues are going to end up in court, so they are taking this step by step, not giving a Republican judge a straight up reason to find against them.

[Me.]

12. Of Course They're Being Deliberate

Apparently that makes them weak

[OnDoutside]

24. "Could" make the look weak. Someone also said that they have an eye on 2020. Posters here have

already expressed the exact same opinions. I think the House Dems are on a very deliberate path. History will tell who was right.

[renate]

13. I'm enjoying the show a lot!

I think John Heilemann is right. Trump's "strong and wrong" narrative is winning, because it's the only one out there.

I don't understand why an impeachment hearing wouldn't get the evidence out in public and on the evening news. I admire the hell out of Nancy Pelosi and I assume and trust that she knows things we don't (polling numbers, maybe) and that's why they haven't even started a hearing, but from the outside it's really mysterious. The facts are on our side. Like Karine said, right now we are fighting on his turf.

[StarfishSaver]

16. They seem to think that if they start impeachment, the gates will open,

tongues will loosen, documents will flow like water and Trump officials will line up to testify.

It was bizarre listening to one of the guests talk about how intently the media would cover impeachment hearings. We have the media telling Democrats that they should launch impeachment hearings because then the media will cover them.

[Me.]

20. Quite

and then while they're covering them, they'll point out the faults with the proceeding and insist the DEms should've waited

[StarfishSaver]

27. Precisely

They want the show and the ratings.

Probably already have the special theme music and graphics ready to go and are itching to whip them out.

They can't wait for their wall-to-wall panels to do the minute-by-minute play-by-play and tell us who's up, who's down and who won the day.

And, of course, if Trump isn't removed from office, it will be the Democrats' fault, not the Republicans who protected him and we'll spend months having to listen to post mortems about how the Democrats overplayed their hands by jumping the gun before they had all their ducks in a row.

[wryter2000]

72. OMG, lol

Do you have to be so right about everything?

[Me.]

17. Oh And Did The SEnate Send Word

they will follow through. If that crew wants to be helpful how about an indictment against the traitor rather than the Dems.

[DeminPennswoods]

18. Dems need to establish a record for any court proceedings

which is another thing most of these commentators miss.

[Ilsa]

31. Yeah, we are fighting on trump's turf.

Right now, the system favors trump, favors his delay processes, and Democrats can't just do away with Due Process and the courts.

I see that they are saying that impeachment will bring media coverage which may convince the populace, or not.

[True Blue American]

82. I loved Jeff Daniels

And his,Atticus Finch.

[DeminPennswoods]

15. These comments are all about ratings

They all miss the point that before the House Judiciary Committee held it's impeachment hearings and vote, there were months of televised hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate that uncovered all the facts and the existence of the WH tapes. That is what moved public opinion.

Dems are trying to follow this model, but they only hold the House, not both chambers of Congress like Dems did during Watergate.

If I were Pelosi and the committee chairs, I'd be looking to begin hearings with small fish, ones who are bit players and cannot afford to defy Congress, but are still important. Remember it was Ulasewicz was the one who revealed the bags of hush money cash being delivered via phone booths and Butterfield who revealed the existence of the Oval Office taping system.

If they want a bigger fish, I'd call Flynn. Flynn's plea agreement requires him to co-operate and he has not yet been sentenced. Do you think he'd risk refusing to appear given Judge Sullivan's order that he co-operate more before Sullivan would impose a sentence? Sullivan doesn't have to accept the SCO's sentencing memo recommendations.

[elleng]

28. Stomping? Really?

[Chin music]

34. I think I saw Yahweh Mueller, ride by the bus stop on his donkey...

Had some palms in his hand. Was muttering and counting a wad of what looked like green backs.
Yo church boy...WWJD? (Hint: It doesn't look anything like what YOU're doing.) What about the Big Green Machine and all that? Honor/love of country, fidelity?? Pah. Buncha platitudes. (For him.)

[Me.]

35. Oh I Don't Think Mueller Is On The Take

I just think he has placed institution above country

[StarfishSaver]

45. Or maybe he respects the rule of law

even when it doesn't achieve the result some people want.

[emmaverybo]

114. This. nt

[Chin music]

48. I think he HIDES behind institutions, and his brethren of same, and the fix was in when he got

appointed by rosy red rosenstein. All are russo-repubs so none of them can be trusted imho, you are the company you keep. I'm not buying the holier than thou horse shit anymore, and when I said he should be viewed w a jaundiced eye here MONTHS ago, I was roundly attacked for being of little faith.
. He's had all kinds of time in two months to find his inner Jesus, and let it all fly. He may not be the recipient of a bag of money, but he's still collecting govt checks. 6 of 1, half dozen of another. Been FAR too long already.
(If you look you can still see him in the distance...he's singing 'ho-sanah hey zannah' now I think. Yes, in fact he IS!)

[StarfishSaver]

57. It's interesting seeing people demanding the Trump the held accountable for violating

the rule of law gets so angry because the people they want to hold him accountable won't violate the rule of law in order to do it.

[FrankBooth]

88. Yep. The usual suspects yammering on and on

It's pretty transparent. Slamming Mueller with projection about his motivations, when they can't possibly know what those motivations really are -- that's a tell.

Dems should continue to be deliberate and set things up correctly. Impeachment is not about ratings or an emotional 'gotcha' moment. Proceed methodically and carefully so when impeachment comes, which it inevitably will, the case is stronger in the House, the Senate and the Courts.

[redstateblues]

46. A bunch of Republicans telling us what we should do

[Me.]

54. No Kidding

Don't forget Heileman was Halperin's partner before Halperin's disgrace

[hannah]

62. I so agree

MSNBC has a lot of Republicans telling Democrat’s what to do. Morning Joe. Nicole Wallace, Chuck Toad.They tell you which Democrat you should like in the primary ( Mayor Pete) and who not to like (Beto).
They have a few topics that they repeat on each and every show, hour after hour. Lots of news going on but they stick with repetition of just a few subjects. They have the same weak ass fill in Republicans like Kasey Hunt, Kristin Welker, the dreadful Kelly O’Donnell, Hallie Jackson.

It makes me freaking sick. Stop wasting air time. Bring in some shows that will make a dent in the boredom. How about Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Joy Reid.

[LiberalFighter]

47. I guess they are ignoring all the work the Democratic members are doing. By the book!

[dem4decades]

49. Your mistake. Stop watching. Morning Joe, Republican, that's

Where she came from. Her show is all Republicans too. Not Trumpers but all Republicans.

[Me.]

52. Many Not All

Karine St Pierre senior advisor to move-on

[Me.]

56. And So It Begins

Judge rules in favor of subpoena issued by House Oversight Committee for Trumps Financial records.

""These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations," Mehta wrote."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212112745

[Chin music]

60. And the COURT will send some Federal Marshals over to pick his jimmy ass up.

And it can happen quickly.
Just as quickly as they can hand-cuff manuchin tomorrow in front of God and Country if the Sgt of Arms deems it to be necessary.
I'm hoping by noon tomorrow, we have our first 'jail-bird collar' off the floor of Congress.

[Vinca]

58. I think John Heileman was entirely correct. I became an impeachment convert after being

reminded that voters in 2018 voted for action by Democrats. If Democrats don't follow through, I worry they'll sit home in 2020. It's a given it will never get out of the Senate, but the investigation would be on television all day every day for months on end including people testifying who are now being blocked. Jeff Daniels was on at the end of the show, but I didn't see Steve Schmidt. I think he's still out of the commenting business and working for Mr. Starbuck's campaign.

[Chin music]

61. +1

[50 Shades Of Blue]

63. Not in my opinion. I saw no "stomping." Iheard well-reasoned arguments that I agreed with.

They expressed respect for Nancy Pelosi, just didn't agree with her seeming current take on impeachment.

[Me.]

75. First...I Thought Heliman's (THe CIrcus) Long Rant Was Way Out Of Line

and Davis Jolley has a lot of nerve criticizing Dems the way he did today and comparing Nancy P. unfavorably to Amash. As for St. Pierre, Move-On needs a new senior advisor as she always repeats the consensus of the table and never much of an original thinker.

But that's just my opinion and of course you are entitled to yours.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

84. We are in an emergency situation. IMO this discussion reflected that.

[Me.]

85. WE Disagree

I think it reflected their frustration and no real cogent thinking. And how productive to kick Dems for proceeding according too law and procedure. And as I said up thread, I didn't see them berating McConnell for his obstruction or all the other Dems in the Congress. in fact, according to Jolley, Amash, the lone Con, is better than Pelosi. What's Jolley done to help except criticize?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

86. They weren't "kicking" Dems. They were respectful. The discussion wasn't about McConnell - it was

about Dems in the House and potential consequences if they don't seize the moment and use their power against the criminal president.

[Me.]

87. Again, We Disagree

he was on a a self serving rant and she should've stopped him

[50 Shades Of Blue]

90. Yeah we do because that wasn't how I saw it at all.

When it comes to expressing criticism of Trump and giving Dems and/or other Trump critics a daily platform, Nicolle Wallace is second to none.

[Me.]

93. But Her Guests Weren't & Didn't

[50 Shades Of Blue]

105. They weren't discussing the urgency of impeachment proceedings because they are Trump lovers!

[Me.]

110. Of Course Not

But it also wasn't necessary to rant about the DEms like Heileman did

[Cha]

115. Good on ya, Me!

I didn't see it, but from your description I wholeheartedly agree.

Words matter.

Thanks for your OP

[Me.]

123. ...

[50 Shades Of Blue]

129. He was not ranting. He was expressing frustration and confusion over why Dems aren't

seizing this moment to put the screws to Trump in the most effective way they have, when this is not a situation that calls for political calculation but for courage and boldness.

[Me.]

130. Nonsense

He seized the moment all right and she needed to take it back from him. And it's not political calculation however much try to frame it that way.

[RussBLib]

66. the Jeff Daniels segment was pretty good

He talked the play "To Kill a Mockingbird" in which he stars as Atticus Finch. It was powerful enough that Nicole was speechless.

But that's the only segment I saw.

[Me.]

70. I Turned It Back On

after someone here said he was great and he was

[wryter2000]

67. And right on cue

There are at least two OP's lauding the show and calling it "must watch."

Those smug bastards brought us to where we are today. They can keep their mouths shut and let the grown-ups do the work...as usual.

[eleny]

74. Well said

If they join the Dem Party then I'll take them more seriously. As far as I know they left the GOP but now sit on the sidelines and wag fingers.

I don't watch her show since she only became an independent. But I can be schooled.

[Me.]

76. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[IADEMO2004]

73. Watched today will watch tomorrow. That's all I have to say about that.

[OliverQ]

89. They're correct. Dem leadership is being weak.

Trump is a tyrant. He breaks the law on a daily basis, and Dems are still debating whether to impeach or wait until 2020 to get rid of him. That is not an option. He has to be impeached, or it will be the end of America.

[Me.]

94. THey Are Not 'Debating'

They know what has to be done, how to do it and are in the process of doing it and calling them weak only aids him and his mafia in their propaganda

[OliverQ]

98. All I see them doing is allowing Trump and his administration to ignore subpoenas

with no consequences and claiming there is no point impeaching.

[Me.]

99. Allowing? Seriously?

This is the overwrought talk happening lately and no one said there is no point in impeaching. Yet people keep insisting something was said that wasn't.

[TwilightZone]

125. "impeach or wait until 2020 to get rid of him"

Impeachment is not going to "get rid of him". Whether we impeach him or not, 2020 is the first realistic opportunity to remove him from office. The Senate will not do so.

[OliverQ]

126. True, but I'm not convinced the US will survive until 2020 at this rate.

[watoos]

96. Loved the show

People calling for Trump’s impeachment.
Question for the wait crowd, when?
Does the wait crowd want to move on from the Mueller report and not impeach?
Trump is controlling the narrative.
Debates start this fall, 1st election February I think.

[Me.]

97. I Want Him Removed Any Which Way THey Can

But I trust them to know when it's time to pull the trigger. As for the Mueller report I wonder why he has not already agreed to a date to testify.

[mcar]

106. Maybe all those Republicans should work on reforming their own party

[watoos]

108. Nicolle denounced the Republican party

She is as good or better than Rachel. They are the only 2 shows I watch. I do listen to real libruls on Sirius.

[Me.]

111. Up To This Pint I've Given Her Kudos

But she let the guests get out of hand today and should've pulled them back in. Jolley has become a broken record going from show to show saying the same things but his comparison between Nancy & Amash was outrageous.

[DeminPennswoods]

121. Unlike the other former Rs, she has said several times

recently on her show that she is voting for whoever the Dem candidate is in 2020.

[Me.]

112. Or Pushing THem To Do The Right Thing

as hard as they have been pushing the Dems

[mcar]

113. Yep

[kentuck]

120. I think Nicolle is great!

I don't think your headline does her justice.

Just my opinion.

[Me.]

124. I Was Of Your Opinion Until Yesterday

so after two years of silence regarding traitor trump Amash levels a criticism and he's treated like the 2nd coming, and where are the rest of them, how about focusing on them instead of kicking the Dems around is what I say

[helpisontheway]

122. Thanks for the warning. I started recording her show a couple weeks ago. Not gonna watch them bash D

[Me.]

132. I'm Looking to See What Her Show Is Like Today