Who's into it?

Login to view embedded media

He just pinned his way to a state title. Super dominate and only a sophomore, I believe.

There’s been widespread attention on Donald Trump’s asserting that he would refuse to defend NATO allies he considers “delinquent” and even saying he might encourage Russia to attack them. A lot of the conversations I’ve heard have focused on the policy implications — on what it would mean for America to abandon its treaty obligations and treat NATO as a protection racket.
These implications are important and alarming. But if you ask me, we haven’t given enough attention to exactly what Trump said — and what it says about his grasp on reality.
Honestly, I’d love to spend this campaign talking only about policy; wonkery is my happy place. But since enough of the body politic seems to have decided to make this election season an exercise in amateur long-distance geriatric diagnosis, focusing on President Biden’s age and appearance rather than his record, let’s take a closer look at his opponent.
For Trump often gives the impression of living in his own reality. I’m not talking about the fact that he lies a lot, although he does. My point, rather, is that he often seems unable to tell the difference between self-aggrandizing fantasies and things that actually happened.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


So here’s how Trump’s repudiation of NATO went down: He didn’t make a straightforward case, which would have been arguable, that we’re spending too much on defense while our allies are spending too little. Instead, he told a story: “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent? … No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.’”
To use the language of intelligence assessments, it’s highly unlikely that this conversation or anything like it actually happened.
But as CNN’s Daniel Dale has noted, Trump is very fond of telling stories about big, strong men with tears in their eyes coming up and calling him “sir.” There’s almost never any corroborating evidence, and it’s a good bet that very few of these stories are accounts of actual conversations.

It is similarly highly unlikely that the likes of, let’s say, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel ever addressed Trump as “sir.” It’s also highly unlikely that any NATO leaders asked what would happen if their countries didn’t “pay.” European officials know, even if Trump doesn’t, that NATO is an alliance, not a club that collects dues from its members.
By the way, while European nations have probably been spending too little on their own defense, many have risen to the challenge of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Notably, Lithuania — which Trump singled out as fair game for Putin — has spent six times as much on Ukraine aid, measured as a share of G.D.P., as the United States has.

​

​

​

​

So what’s going on here? Either Trump is telling an especially pointless lie or he’s confused about past events.
It wouldn’t be the first time. As I said, while we don’t know for sure that Trump’s many “sir” stories are figments of his imagination, we do know that, contrary to his claims, one source said there’s no way that police officers and court employees were “crying” and apologizing to Trump at his Manhattan court arraignment last spring.
Let’s be clear what’s at stake here. Never mind the political analysis, the talk about public perceptions and how they may affect the 2024 horse race. What we should be focusing on is how the candidates’ mental competence might affect their decision making.
It’s notable that despite all the frenzy about Biden’s age, I haven’t seen many suggestions that he’s made bad decisions because his judgment is impaired; it’s almost all speculation about the future. Yes, he’s made mistakes, although the two decisions that got the most criticism — withdrawing from Afghanistan and going big on spending — are actually looking justifiable in retrospect.
But these mistakes, if they were mistakes, were the kind any president, no matter how young and vigorous, could have made.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


On the other hand, consider how Trump reacted to the Covid-19 pandemic. Republicans have been remarkably successful at pretending that the Trump administration ended before the pandemic came to dominate the scene. But it didn’t; Covid killed more than 77,000 Americans in December 2020, Trump’s last full month in office.
And as the pandemic spread, Trump responded, as The Washington Post put it, with “denial, mismanagement and magical thinking.” Basically, he was unwilling to acknowledge an inconvenient reality and continually minimized the danger while amplifying quack remedies. Remember all the times he said Covid would disappear? Remember the “disinfectant” press briefing? Remember hydroxychloroquine?
Oh, and in case you’ve forgotten, Trump still refuses to admit that he lost the 2020 election.
Unlike Biden’s missteps, whatever you may think they have been, Trump’s mishandling of Covid and election denial were uniquely Trumpian — the behavior of a man who doesn’t like to accept reality when it isn’t what he wants it to be.
And does anyone think he’s improved on that front over the past three years?

A bipartisan ethics panel in Wisconsin has recommended felony charges against one of Donald Trump’s fundraising arms in relation to an alleged scheme that it says was meant to circumvent campaign finance laws to take out a powerful GOP lawmaker who has turned against Trump.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

The prosecution referrals became public Friday and add to the legal troubles of the former president, who is already facing 91 charges in four cases in other jurisdictions.

The Wisconsin Ethics Commission this week found probable cause that Trump’s Save America committee and several state and local Republican officials committed felonies and recommended several district attorneys investigate and prosecute them, according to records released Friday.

The commission’s investigation centers on the 2022 primary race between Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, one of the most powerful Republicans in Wisconsin, and Adam Steen, a political newcomer who embraced Trump.


ADVERTISING


Individuals and most political entities can give a maximum of $1,000 each to candidates for the Wisconsin Assembly under state law, but arms of political parties can give them unlimited amounts. The commission alleges Steen, Steen’s campaign and three county Republican parties arranged to sidestep campaign finance laws by having donors give money to one of the county parties, which would then steer it to Steen’s campaign or his vendors, according to the records released Friday.
Save America donated $15,000 to the county parties in August 2022 — $5,000 each to the Republican parties of Chippewa, Florence and Langlade counties. They are the only donations Save America made to county parties in 2021 and 2022, campaign finance records show.

Neither the Trump campaign nor Steen immediately responded to requests for comment. The website WisPolitics first reported on the referrals.


Vos has had a tumultuous relationship with Trump for years, especially since the former president baselessly alleged the 2020 election in Wisconsin was rigged against him.

Hoping to appease Trump and his supporters, Vos hired a former state Supreme Court justice to conduct a review of the election, which centered on conspiracy theories and false claims that the legislature could revoke the state’s electoral votes for Joe Biden.
Trump claimed Vos did not pursue the investigation with enough vigor and endorsed Steen as he made his out-of-nowhere primary challenge to Vos in 2022. Vos narrowly won that primary, and now Steen’s allies are gathering signatures in hopes of holding a recall election of Vos.

The ethics commission made its referral against Save America and its agents, but did not identify anyone with Save America by name. It alleged those involved in the efforts committed felonies that can result in penalties of up to 3½ years in prison and fines of $10,000. Additional penalties could be in play if prosecutors pursue conspiracy charges.


The ethics commission consists of three Republicans and three Democrats. It referred charges to Republican prosecutors in five counties because Wisconsin law requires campaign finance cases to be prosecuted where the alleged perpetrator lives if they are a state resident. For out-of-state residents and entities, such as Save America, the alleged violations are prosecuted where they occurred.
If the district attorneys do not act within 60 days, the commission has the authority to refer its request for prosecution to Attorney General Josh Kaul (D). Under state law, the commission must conduct most of its work in secret. It is rare for it to pursue serious charges.

Patricia Hanson, the district attorney in Racine County, said she would make a decision quickly on the referral the commission made against Steen’s campaign. Sue Opper, the district attorney in Waukesha County, said she needed more information from the ethics commission before she could determine how she would proceed. Other prosecutors did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Taking wife to the game tomorrow, we're based in Indy and went to last year's game. Hoosiers squad had more depth last year and lost Grace Berger to graduation(WNBA_Indiana Fever). Anyone making the trip from Iowa? Hoosiers fans were cordial at the game last year as there was a handful of black and gold peppered into the crowd. Tomorrow night's game is Hoosiers "white out". Hope to see a fair amount of Hawkeye fans there.

I have a Junior, and they are considering Air Force or something similar after High School. None of my living family is Military, so I don't know much about any of it.

They are considering because they'd like to get out of current city and see other places; understand they need help with structure, like that it pays for school; and maybe give them some ideas for career path. They've considered straight enlistment or ROTC type thing, and then enlist after school?

End borders.
End police.
End arresting people for crimes.
End sex/ gender differences.
End safe spaces for women.
End the existence of non-brown people online and in real life.
End accountability.
End Democracy by having opponents removed from ballots or dragged through court.
Support Hamas.
Where are you going with all of this?

My dad mentioned that he may start dispersing his retirement account to his children prior to his death. He’s not in great health, but not terminal either. I have concerns. While I’d love the money to put into my kids 529, I want to make sure he isn’t giving away his stuff too early. He still has a pension and social security. Minimal bills at this time (no house payment, small car payment) and really good health coverage with Medicare and a supplement. What kind of issues am I not considering? Taxes? Early withdrawal before 70 (not sure of the right age)? Other than the obvious concern of him cutting himself short?

You know it's coming.

As a PSA if anyone is looking for a 2-season series do binge it is pretty good. Apple TV. Kind of like Independence Day meets goonies meets heros.

7pm Peacock

The No. 4 Hawkeyes (23-3, 12-2 Big Ten) are looking to solidify their place in the conference standings, but will have a tough test as they travel to Bloomington to take on the No. 12 Hoosiers (21-4, 12-3).

Indiana is a perfect 13-0 this season and will certainly be giving Iowa their best shot. The Hawkeyes have had a long rest since their Michigan victory and CC’s record breaking performance.

I think the hawks win a close one, 89-84

Video in the article.

Raging woman kicks puppies, leaves Texas tourist bloodied in NYC pet store rampage caught on video

I mean, you think he would, being the darling of all the fundamentalists and religious right. And all the wonderful things he's done... except for the rape and those 91 felonies and two impeachments and half a billion $ in fines for his crimes, the golden shower thing. Anyway, I personally think it's because in his last conversation with God, God told him he would burst him into flames if he ever walked in a church. Just my take...

Anybody here been to a Wolves game lately?

Iowa is low in the standings. Is there much of a crowd or good atmosphere at the Well? (It has been at least a couple years since I went to a Wolves game).

I see Lance Stephenson is on the team.

How do we know if Luka Garza is down with the Iowa Wolves, and when he is up with the Timberwolves?

I welcome any other thoughts that anybody cares to share about this.

Donald J. Trump has claimed in a lawsuit in a London court that Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, inflicted “personal and reputational damage and distress” on him by leaking a dossier detailing unsavory, unproven accounts of links between him and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump argue that Mr. Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, breached British data protection laws with the dossier, which triggered a political earthquake when it was published just before Mr. Trump’s inauguration in 2017.
The lawsuit, the first filed by Mr. Trump in Britain related to the dossier, could offer the former president more favorable legal terrain than the United States. Last year, a federal judge in Florida threw out his lawsuit claiming that Mr. Steele, as well as Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, was involved in a concerted plot to spread false information about Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.
In a court filing last month, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said he was “compelled to explain to his family, friends, and colleagues that the embarrassing allegations about his private life were untrue. This was extremely distressing” for him, the filing said, asserting that Mr. Steele had presented the claims in a “sensationalist manner” that was “calculated to cause tremendous embarrassment” to Mr. Trump. He is asking for unspecified compensation.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


The High Court judge Matthew Nicklin has scheduled a two-day hearing on Oct. 16 and 17, at which arguments will be heard and lawyers for Mr. Steele’s firm will move to throw out the case, which was originally filed last November.




In a witness statement, Mr. Steele accused Mr. Trump of “numerous public attacks upon me and Orbis.” He said the former president had initiated “frivolous and abusive legal proceedings” against him and his firm in the United States, a conclusion echoed by the Florida judge’s ruling.

​

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to requests for comment, and neither did his British lawyers, while Mr. Steele declined to comment.
Mr. Trump’s foray into the British courts comes as he is facing a raft of criminal and civil charges in the United States, on accusations ranging from election interference to inflating the value of his real estate assets — all of which he has denied. He has experienced a string of legal setbacks in courtrooms from Manhattan to South Florida.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


But in London, Mr. Trump is the plaintiff, and legal experts said his lawyers were trying to seize an advantage from Britain’s comparatively tight controls on personal data. Winning a claim that his data had been compromised, these lawyers said, would be easier than winning a claim of defamation.

“It avoids the obvious hurdles of a U.K. defamation claim,” said Jay Joshi, a media lawyer with the London firm Taylor Hampton. These include the statute of limitations for defamation, normally a year, and the fact that the dossier was published in the United States, not Britain. “Trump is clearly seeking some form of vindication,” Mr. Joshi said.
In 2020, Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian technology entrepreneur who was cited in the dossier, lost a defamation suit against Mr. Steele. But in another case that year, two Russian oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, won damages of 18,000 pounds ($22,900) each from Mr. Steele’s firm after they argued that allegations about them in the dossier violated data-protection laws.
The court ruled that Orbis had “failed to take reasonable steps to verify” claims that Mr. Fridman and Mr. Aven, who controlled Alfa Bank, had made illicit payments to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, though the judge dismissed several other claims.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers are making a similar claim that Mr. Steele’s firm did not confirm the claims about him. Among other things, they said, Mr. Trump did not bribe Russian officials to advance his business interests.

​

“The claimant did not engage in unorthodox behavior in Russia and did not act in a way that Russia authorities were provided with material to blackmail him,” the lawyers said. “The personal data is not accurate. Further, the Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to insure the personal data was accurate.”
Mr. Trump is being represented by Hugh Tomlinson, a leading London media lawyer who specializes in defamation, privacy and data protection. Among his former clients is King Charles III, then the Prince of Wales, for whom Mr. Tomlinson argued successfully that a British tabloid should not be allowed to publish his private diaries, which contained astringent comments about the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China.
The Steele dossier grew out of an opposition research effort to dig up information about Mr. Trump, funded by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. Their law firm, Perkins Coie, contracted with a Washington research firm, Fusion GPS, which in turn hired Mr. Steele, an expert on Russia, to research Mr. Trump’s business dealings in the country.
Mr. Steele shared some of the memos with the F.B.I. and journalists; they first came to light in January 2017 when Buzzfeed published 35 pages.
His findings have been largely discredited by the F.B.I. and others who have investigated Mr. Trump’s relationship to Russia. Relying on anonymous sources, the dossier asserted that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and that Russian officials had a blackmail tape of Mr. Trump with prostitutes.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


For much of his information, Mr. Steele relied on Igor Danchenko, a Russian researcher who told federal investigators that some of the claims were rumors that he had not been able to confirm. Mr. Danchenko was later indicted on a charge of misleading federal investigators, but he was ultimately acquitted.
The F.B.I. concluded that one of the most explosive allegations in the dossier — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the 2016 campaign — was false.
In his witness statement, Mr. Steele said he wrote the memos on a computer that was not connected to a network and was equipped with security that prohibited any third party from extracting data stored on it. He also said that Orbis no longer held any copy of the dossier on its systems by the end of the first week of January 2017.
Mr. Steele has not denied sharing the dossier with journalists. But he rejected the contention that he has sought to promote its contents since then.
“I declined to provide any media interviews for three and a half years after the publication of the dossier by Buzzfeed, despite being asked multiple times by major international media organizations,” he testified. “If I had wanted to ‘promote’ the dossier as Mr. Trump suggests, I obviously would have taken up those media opportunities.”

Vote. Them. Out,:

All House Republicans voted Wednesday to authorize the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden - including all four Iowa representatives.

In a 221-212 party-line vote, Republicans rallied in support of the inquiry, despite a lack of evidence showing Biden has committed impeachable offenses.



"By voting to formally continue this inquiry, I remain impartial on the outcome of the investigation, but we must ensure Congress has the power needed to effectively conduct oversight of the Executive Branch in a way that compels transparency from the White House," said Rep. Zach Nunn in a statement.

Republicans, including Nunn, Rep. Randy Feenstra and Rep. Ashley Hinson, noted the impeachment inquiry is a crucial step in getting more answers from the Biden administration.

"If President Biden had nothing to hide, his White House would be readily complying with our Committees' requests," Hinson said in a statement. "It is our solemn duty to get the facts for the American people, especially as the White House continues to stonewall Congressional oversight."

Local 5 has reached out to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks for comment, but has yet to hear back.

Read Feenstra, Hinson and Nunn's full statements below.

Rep. Randy Feenstra​

“The American people deserve accountability and transparency from their elected officials — and the president is no exception. While Republicans have upheld our constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch, President Biden has been uncooperative and evasive. That’s why I voted to advance a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden and his questionable conduct. We are now one step closer to uncovering his connection to his son’s sweetheart deal with the IRS and involvement in his foreign business dealings.”

Related Articles​

• House begins impeachment inquiry against Biden as government shutdown looms
• House Republicans set to subpoena Hunter and James Biden in impeachment inquiry
• With support from every Republican, House approves Biden impeachment inquiry

Rep. Ashley Hinson​

“Today, House Republicans voted to formally launch an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden with one intention: follow the facts wherever they may lead. I have never supported predetermined or political impeachments, as Nancy Pelosi pursued with President Trump. The credible allegations uncovered about President Biden's potential involvement in Hunter Biden's influence peddling and alleged pay-to-play schemes warrant full investigation, as do the President's blatant lies about his knowledge regarding his family's foreign business dealings. If President Biden had nothing to hide, his White House would be readily complying with our Committees' requests. It is our solemn duty to get the facts for the American people, especially as the White House continues to stonewall Congressional oversight."

Rep. Zach Nunn​

“The American people deserve honesty and integrity from their elected officials. I came to Washington to hold D.C. politicians accountable–from George Santos to Robert Menendez and even the President. That’s why I’ve championed ending proxy voting, prohibiting insider trading by politicians, tripling the lobbying ban for members, and eliminating taxpayer funded pensions for those expelled from Congress. In the same vein, today I voted to continue an investigation into conduct by President Biden. Regardless of party, there is no reason to run away from the truth. This investigation will provide facts to the American people so that each person can decide for themselves whether the conduct rises to the level of impeachment.”

“This investigation is already ongoing, and the White House has refused to comply with requests for information from the House of Representatives. By voting to formally continue this inquiry, I remain impartial on the outcome of the investigation, but we must ensure Congress has the power needed to effectively conduct oversight of the Executive Branch in a way that compels transparency from the White House. My hope is that this investigation will deliver the answers the American people deserve in a clear, nonpartisan, and unbiased way.”

Iowa delegation votes in favor of Biden impeachment inquiry

Iowa’s all-Republican congressional delegation joined the vote to formalize the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

nonpareilonline.com

Voters in 2022 rebelled against Republican extremism, compulsive lying, chaos, hysteria and nihilism. House Democrats did quite well by historical standards; Senate Democrats actually added to their majority. And nearly all election deniers in swing states running for governor, attorney general or secretary of state lost.

What has happened since? House Republicans have cycled through speakers, tried to shut down the government several times and brought the United States to the brink of default. They spent months on bogus impeachment investigations and harassed local district attorneys prosecuting defeated former president Donald Trump. They also demanded, and then nixed, a border-control measure. To top it off, they refused even a vote on vital aid for Ukraine. It sure doesn’t appear as though they learned their lesson.



Some House Republicans are destructive, bordering on nihilistic, because they are following Trump’s lead. And sure enough, Republican primary voters are on the verge of handing the nomination to a man who threatens courts and the FBI, spews fascist “pure” blood language, vows to unleash the Justice Department on his enemies (“I am your vengeance!”) and sabotages bipartisanship when it suits his interests. He still refuses to admit he lost in 2020 — a sign he would not accept defeat this year, either. In a textbook case of toxic narcissism, Trump mentions the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny only in connection with his own (self-inflicted) legal problems.


He brags about removing the protection of abortion rights, which upended the lives of millions of women, their families and the medical community. He wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act with no replacement in sight. He wants to split NATO. Chaos, chaos and more chaos.
To top it off, he will be running while sitting through at least one criminal trial — and possibly two. Should he be convicted in one or more and then elected, we will have leaped into a constitutional dumpster fire in which either the will of the voters or the judgment of juries in criminal cases might be sacrificed to satisfy the other. If he loses in November, we can expect a rerun of Jan. 6, 2021. Violence and chaos.



Even Republicans acknowledge the former president’s destructive impulses. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley regularly calls Trump out for bringing on chaos. She also declared, “An unhinged president is an unsafe president.” Her audiences understand exactly what she means.
Trump’s maelstrom has yet to reach its apex. He will likely decompose further as his financial situation craters and his criminal cases go from bad to worse. With every temper tantrum on courtroom steps, flurry of insane posts on social media and outburst at a judge, he will remind voters of what they hate — and what they have to fear should he return to the White House.
President Biden gets harangued constantly about his age, but no one seriously thinks he is impulsive, destructive, chaotic, plundering, violent or bent on dismantling our constitutional system. We need not worry that he will try to pardon himself and hundreds of insurrectionists. We know he declines to interfere with the Justice Department, abides by court rulings and respects the military’s apolitical role. He is trying to bolster the international order, not upend it. With age and solid character come stability, calm, competence and, occasionally, wisdom. That is the real contrast between the two.

When then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced in September that the House Republican conference would move forward with an impeachment inquiry targeting President Biden, he identified a few promising threads of investigation.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

One was that “a trusted FBI informant has alleged a bribe to the Biden family.” Another was that Biden had been inappropriately involved with his son Hunter’s engagement with a Ukrainian energy company. A third was that Biden appeared to be broadly involved in his son’s and brother’s business activities.

At the time, none of these was substantiated. In fact, much of McCarthy’s framing even then was obviously misleading or flatly dishonest. But then, the goal was to investigate these things and perhaps reinforce them.

That is not what has happened.
Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
Last week, the first thread above blew apart in spectacular fashion. The “trusted FBI informant” was indicted on a charge of lying to the FBI in 2020 specifically about the alleged bribe to Joe Biden. The indictment presents extensive evidence both that the informant couldn’t have had the conversations he said he had — conversations that were themselves only secondhand documentation of the alleged bribes — and that the informant was eager to see Biden’s campaign falter. Then it got worse: The informant allegedly has connections to foreign intelligence, including in Russia.


(An aside: It is not alleged that the bribery allegation was a product of interference from foreign intelligence. Instead, the new allegation about those connections points to a different effort to impugn Hunter Biden as being linked back to Russia.)

The GOP impeachment inquiry into Biden keeps falling apart
1:05

For months, the House GOP cited an FBI informant to suggest Joe Biden took a bribe as vice president. Now, the Justice Department says that source was lying. (Video: JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
The House Republicans leading the impeachment inquiry, including Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), had repeatedly hyped the bribery allegation as a central element of their probe. The implosion left them scrambling and parsing words, with Comer — responsible more than any other person on Capitol Hill for elevating the allegation — telling a Newsmax host Wednesday that the informant himself wasn’t an important part of the investigation.

Jordan, meanwhile, was an unwitting participant in a clip shared widely on social media that same day.

CNN’s Manu Raju pressed Jordan on his representations about the bribery allegation.


ADVERTISING

“It doesn’t change the four fundamental facts,” Jordan replied, walking through those four facts about the probe.
“You said the 1023 is the most corroborating piece of information you have,” Raju then pressed him.

“It corroborates but it doesn’t change those fundamental facts,” Jordan replied.
“It’s not true!” Raju said.
This seems like a pretty brutal exchange for Jordan, certainly. But only if we gloss over the “four facts” Jordan’s talking about — claims that deal not with the first, bribery-related thread that was blown apart by the indictment of the informant but that instead deal with the second thread, the one about Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business partners. So the gotcha by Raju isn’t quite what it seemed.

But for all practical purposes, it didn’t matter, since the “four facts” thing Jordan likes to do has also been debunked.


He began using this line last year, that there are “four fundamental facts” that show how Joe Biden acted inappropriately while serving as vice president. We’ve picked this apart previously. The upshot is that it falsely asserts that Joe Biden wanted a Ukrainian official fired to benefit Hunter’s business partner, which has been debunked repeatedly. It also depends on the idea that Joe Biden made a trip to Ukraine after a call from Hunter Biden — a call that likely wasn’t made to Joe Biden and that came days after Biden had already announced the trip.
In other words, Jordan’s efforts to deflect Raju’s questions about the collapse of the bribery claim centered on raising other debunked allegations against Biden.

(Another aside: Technically, McCarthy’s framing of Joe Biden’s purported involvement with Hunter’s Ukrainian partners focused on an email exchange between someone in Biden’s office and a colleague of his son’s, but in an abundance of graciousness we have updated the allegation to match his allies’ current position.)


Then there’s that third thread, this broad argument that Joe Biden has been a quiet/hidden partner with his son and his brother James Biden. Most of the energy that Republicans have invested in the impeachment investigation has centered on finding some proof that Joe Biden benefited from his family’s businesses. The result? They have no more evidence than they did 14 months ago.
Sure, they documented that Hunter Biden leveraged his family name as an income stream. They learned that on some occasions when Joe Biden would call his son, his son would be in meetings with business partners and put him on speakerphone. They learned that both Hunter’s business and James Biden personally had paid Biden thousands of dollars — money that was demonstrably in repayment of loans.

They have also heard from witnesses testifying under penalty of perjury that Biden wasn’t involved in the business. Over and over and over, the same refrain. The most recent person to state that was James Biden himself, testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.


“I have had a 50-year career in a variety of business ventures,” he said in his opening statement. “Joe Biden has never had any involvement or any direct or indirect financial interest in those activities. None.”
He joins every other interviewed participant in those business activities in rejecting the idea that Joe Biden was involved: Devon Archer, Eric Schwerin, James Gilliar. Even Anthony Bobulinski, who in 2020 joined Donald Trump campaign events, was unable to show any evidence that Biden had been involved in the business.

The important point here is that Republicans are correct when they say that the collapse of the bribery allegation does not by itself derail the entirety of their impeachment probe. In addition to their decision to emphasize that dubious allegation, the probe has also been derailed by their failure to find evidence of wrongdoing. There are discrete elements here that stand alone — or, as the case happens to be, collapse independently.
Put another way, it is not the FBI informant’s fault that the effort to impeach President Biden is turning into an embarrassment for Republicans. It’s their fault.

Had a very good interview at state tournament in Texas. The kid is really optimistic and humble. Had good advice for young kids following him. When asked about his plans for college and if he was going to start first year, said Im going to do whatever the coaches want me to do at Iowa.

Oops! We ran into some problems.
You must wait at least 12 seconds before performing this action.

Is it just me, or does that feel like the longest 12 seconds ever. LOL HROT trying to slow down my rapid response time!

I watched these Clint Eastwood directed movies back to back recently. Letters was the much better movie in my opinion. It has a better story, and seemed more cleanly produced. I kept wanting to like Flags, but it was filled with so much historically questionable content I couldn't like it.
Thoughts?