How tomorrow's Judiciary Committee will proceed:

Barry Berke, Majority Counsel: Evidence, evidence, facts, facts, more evidence, more facts ... bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, emoluments ... Conclusion ...

Stephen Castor, Minority Counsel: Hammana hammana. SQUIRREL!!!


Daniel Goldman, Majority Counsel Evidence, evidence, facts, facts, more evidence, more facts ... bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, emoluments ... Conclusion ...

Stephen Castor, Minority Counsel Yabbadabbadoo! Look over THERE! (Tries to eat the Democrats' report, then throws a plate of pasta at the wall...)

This one is so good it made Bette Midler cry ...

Is there any possibility that the Senate trial could backfire on Trump and the Republicans

and the batshish crazy circus they have planned, combined with the flood of irrefutable evidence the Democrats present (much of which we would be hearing for the first time) will be so overwhelming, it actually turns a larger segment of the public and, in turn, pushes a critical mass of GOP senators to vote to convict and remove?

Mitch Landrieu says "Bless your heart, Nikki"

Democrats - candidates AND voters - should be very cautious about casting aspersions on those who

work in corporate America and law enforcement.

Many decent, very "woke" individuals choose to work in those fields, not because they're co-opted, greedy or uncaring, but because they know that change can only come from both outside and inside.

Smearing people for working in law enforcement as some kind of fascists is just wrong. We need good people as police officers, prosecutors, etc. to help change the system from within, make reasoned and fair decisions, and encourage new ways of thinking and doing.

The same goes for corporate America. We need good, solid people there to influence decision-making, change the culture leadership and model new ways of doing things.

If we discourage people from entering those professions and attack them as unworthy of public service if they've worked in those fields, we will both drastically curtail our ability to effect change AND unnecessarily reduce the pool of "acceptable" candidates, leaders, and other public sector servants in ways that only hurt the cause we're championing.

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot playing purity politics.

I'm just not in the mood to explain why Bloomberg calling Cory Booker "well-spoken" is a problem

Can someone else help out here and break it down for those who don't understand it?

Thank you.

We are down with NDP!

Why no concern that black voters or older moderates will stay home if Bernie or Warren are nominated

instead of Biden, but we're regularly warned that young voters will opt out if the opposite occurs?

I ask because we're frequently warned that we must be very careful not to alienate young voters by nominating someone too moderate because we risk them not voting in November. But that's the only group of Democratic voters I ever see catered to that way. I never see this kind of deference or concern shown about any other demographic.

Is it ok that one segment of the party walks away if they don't get their way but other groups must vote blue no matter who?

"He better just call her boss"

Meet James Rosen, the guy who barely survived coming after the Queen when she didn't call him