I always liked her personally. Most of my fear was coming from her endorsement/promotion by Randy Credico, who is a close ally of Roger Stone the Ratfucker. That was coupled with her calls and work to primary established Democrats, so taken as a pair it suggested she might be a plant.

Now I see that Credico has essentially flipped for Mueller and has harshly criticized Trump on Twitter. Also, now that AOC has stopped trying to primary Dems and has turned her guns to Republicans, I like her a lot more.

It’s good to be on your guard and know who you’re dealing with, but in this case my fears were overblown. I now think she’s a good asset for us. She sounds a lot like Bernie but without being Bernie, you know?

December is going to be a wild month. For starters:

Tue., Dec. 4: Michael Flynn's Sentencing Memorandum will be filed by Mueller.
Flynn has been cooperating for months, but will it be enough? Mueller may take this opportunity release relevant facts to the public if he chooses.

also Dec 4: Jeffrey Epstein civil trial in Palm Beach, Fla.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211502448
Victims get a day in court to challenge Epstein’s light sentence. Dershowitz was just accused of statutory rape. There are rumors that Trump also enjoyed Epstein’s underage girls. Worth keeping an eye on.

Wed., Dec. 5: Michael Cohen's Sentencing memorandum expected to be filed
Another opportunity for Mueller to release more facts if he chooses, a week before Cohen’s sentencing.

also Dec 5: Treason hearing for Viktor Yanukovych, District Court, Kiev, Ukraine

Thu., Dec. 6: USAO DC Mariia Butina next hearing
Butina is trying to get a reduced sentence. Does Mueller need her cooperation? Would he trust her if he got it? Unlikely on both counts, IMO.

Fri., Dec 7: Mueller expected to detail Manafort’s crimes & lies in a memo
This is the one to watch. I get the sense that Mueller doesn’t appreciate being lied to, or have a lot of patience for traitors. Expect a full accounting.

Wed., Dec 12: USAO SDNY Michael Cohen sentencing

Fri., Dec 14: SCO “Unknown witness” oral arguments
Yes, really: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-case-of-muellers-mystery-nemesis-is-picking-up-serious-steam/

Tue., Dec 18: SCO Michael Flynn sentencing


Mark your calendars and buckle up!

—Qutz


More background: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/buckle-up-next-week-is-going-to-be-a-busy-one-for-robert-mueller/

(This is an update/expansion of a previous thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211494058)

i.e., audio intercepts from our allies. But he also understands the necessity of not burning sources, especially allied intel. He would likely need a long time to find a way to build a case that does not involve the intercepts. My gut tells me this part is done. There is also the matter of countersuits questioning his legitimacy. While those legal arguments may be questionable, their use as propaganda could be formidable. Mueller will need to get favorable court rulings in both to solidify his legitimacy with the whole of the public — which he will need.

Mueller is demonstrably a patriot, and will try to avert a civil war; but he will not accommodate a traitor. He knows how to take down an organized criminal mob.

I do believe Mueller has thought this through and planned for the possibility the Democrats would win back the House, giving them their sole constitutional remedy for this situation. Before you say Republicans control the Senate and will never convict, I say: Never say never. We do not know the depth of depravity Mueller has uncovered. We do not know who in Congress has been indicted already. We do not know who will be left standing.

I urge patience and steady resolve.

Beto on the ballot helped flip the Texas school board, for instance.

McBath was no doubt helped by the presence of Abrams on the ticket. Ossoff was running all alone.

Urban voters see sidewalks, public transportation, public parks, construction ... your tax dollars at work. Out in the boonies they can’t even expect the cops to show up for a burglary, they have to fend for themselves. So they see government as a burden, whereas city folk see the fruits of their tax dollars.

from the pasty-faced persecutor of the Clintons, which focused undue attention on their sex life.

This guy hates the Clintons for what he cannot accept about himself. He doesn’t need a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. He needs regular appointments with a therapist.

and who delight in being horrible people, are what I call evil. They are enchanted by hate. Their desire is to see harm coming to their “enemies,” and if you can make life miserable for them, all the better. You get Jesus points or something.

When you go out of your way to be an asshole, just for the fun of being an asshole, you’re on a downward trajectory. We all do it sometimes, but we should each self-correct.

Extemist ideologies tend to brand their political opponents as enemies to the point where you might embrace a foreign dictator to keep your team in power. The two idiots wearing t-shirts that read “I’d Rather Be A Russian Than A Democrat” — they are lost, misguded fools. Whoever commissioned the t-shirts is evil.

Your opponents are your fellow countrymen. Foeign military intel operatives who threaten our way of life are the enemy. Never forget that.

Draw contrasts with Republicans without going negative by describing our candidates in simple language:

Integrity. Courage. Honor.

The ACLU’s position is that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. If someone is wrong, he or she should be corrected but not silenced, at least not by the government. That preserves everybody’s rights and advances debate.

In practice, the ACLU’s position allows bubbles of lies to form and remain unchallenged (see FOX News). They nevertheless say that the freedom to speak is more precious than somehow arbitrating all speech and permitting only true things to be said. The government cannot do that under the Constitution, for good reason.

They have been brainwashed to shut down whenever they hear that name, and refuse to hear any more. They cling to a debunked study saying Snopes is fake.

So, plagiarize. Read the Snopes article and pick out two or three facts that prove something is fake, and make those points in your own words. You can cite the same sources they do. That's usually enough to change minds, as long as they don't know where it came from.