"Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider"

IOW, if it had been an option, they could have done it. But the DoJ rules prohibited it.

So therefore (maybe) they had to ignore evidence that pointed directly to him committing a crime because it was irrelevant to the case about the campaign itself interfering. But apparently some of that evidence found its way into the report anyway.

Just discovered ditchmitchfund.com

Amy's web site seems to be left over from her run for the House, but there's another site, Ditch Mitch, that's collecting money to support a Dem running against McC: https://ditchmitchfund.com/

I just found out about it, so I would think they need to be more visible nationwide.

Not sure what her status is re: being "drafted" to run against McC.

Is anyone running against McConnell in KY?

Pelosi spoke at a conference right after the non-meeting at the WH??

I just flipped over to Fox News to see how they were handling the scene, and the piece said that Pelosi spoke at a Center for American Progress "moments after" the debacle in the WH. I flipped to the CAP link, and she was a scheduled speaker.

Okay, so did she go there (early?) because the WH meeting was cut short, or did she know it would be cut short? I don't know, but that "moments after" comment jumped out at me.

And BTW, I'm not bashing her -- just asking a question.

Pelosi's stance on impeachment

I have to wonder if the Speaker is just holding off until things get to the point where she knows she's going to have enough support to pull it off. Then she'll still come across as reasonable (or something to that effect) and can claim that it wasn't her idea.

Reminds me of a technique called the "takeaway close" used by salespeople.

I spent the weekend with an old friend who just happens to be a Republican

He was helping me out with a project, and we mostly avoided talking politics, but it turns out we both agreed on something.

We both miss the days of Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, and other newscasters who just gave you the news and let you make up your own mind, when there weren't so many talking heads making fortunes by telling viewers what they want to hear so they come back to hear more of it and watch all those commercials that are paying for it. And we miss the days when people had the common sense to be able to tell news from opinion.

I just find it so interesting that so many people seem to feel that they have to watch stuff that makes them angry, like, "okay, I've had a hard day at work and I'm home now, so it's time for my 7:00 anger session so I can get more pissed off at the other party."

Ever since, many years ago, when a Fox news director told me that, quote, a news program is just an excuse to bring an audience to an advertiser, unquote, I've had a very cynical view of the whole thing.

Did Dems on the committee really think McGahn would show up?

I don't believe it for a second. Those people have been in politics for many years and they've seen all the moves.

Like Holmes said to Watson, the game's afoot.

And we're the spectators.

Did Fox and Friends just contradict T?

Two articles on the "front page" of Huffpost just now:

‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts Laud Trump Losing $1 Billion: ‘Wow, It’s Pretty Impressive’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-friends-trump-taxes_n_5cd2f150e4b0e524a47e2e6f

Trump Dismisses New York Times Report On His Taxes, Calls It ‘Fake News’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-reaction-tax-information-nyt_n_5cd22aebe4b0a7dffcce3f16

Sometimes life is so confusing...

It bothers me how the story on T's losses is being handled

Please bear with me on this... I'm not going where it may appear I'm going.

And I'm going to leave his name out of it, because I would say the same thing about anybody else.

The clips and write-ups I've seen so far on the story all push how much money he lost and therefore what a con and bad businessperson he was. But according to the NYT story, the available information doesn't prove he LOST that much money, only that he REPORTED losing it.

That's two separate and different things. Saying he lost it will generate conversations about why he lost it and whether it matters -- and one talking head is already making excuses and blaming it on the economy back then. OTOH, saying he reported it will generate conversations about whether the tax returns were truthful. I happen to believe the second one is more important than the first.

Let's not forget that this individual didn't just sit down at the kitchen table and fill out a five-or-six-page return like many of us mere mortals: there was a small army (okay, maybe a platoon) of tax specialists doing those taxes, and I have to believe they knew all the tricks and loopholes. Somebody had to sign those returns, asserting, under penalty of perjury, that they were truthful

So, for my money, I wish the pundits and reporters focused on his REPORTING he lost the money, instead of on his LOSING it.

Just went to see Apollo 11

Awesome movie (more like a documentary). I was in high school and glued to the TV for the whole thing. Different times back then. Hard to keep a dry eye.