Two senators convened a press conference yesterday to explicitly threaten US/NATO war against Russia: "They will be destroyed... they will be eviscerated"
There was once a time, in the very distant past, when this type of thing used to be seen as unhinged Dr. Strangelove lunacy
Lindsey Graham holds up a piece of paper quoting Biden about the alleged threat of Putin using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Dick Blumenthal gamely looks on
Graham and Blumenthal have long worked successfully together, side by side, to generate support for highly assertive senate resolutions regarding the Ukraine conflict
Last summer this dynamic duo shepherded through the senate a resolution calling on the Biden Admin to formally designate Russia a "State Sponsor of Terror." Amazingly, the vote was unanimous. All 100 senators, from Rand Paul to Bernie Sanders, supported it
Highlighted the parts of the House censure resolution that are essentially just incontestable factual descriptions of Adam Schiff's public behavior
A good question for House Democrats who all unanimously voted against the censure resolution would be, do they seriously contest any of fact claims in the resolution -- and if so, please explain. If not, please explain why the conduct described therein would not be censure-worthy
Unsurprisingly, no attempt even made to pretend they're interested in addressing the actual fact claims presented in the text of the resolution
I'll admit to not having fully realized how close the westermost island of Japan is to Taiwan
For another sense of proportion...
Taiwan is about 70 miles from Yonaguni Island, the westernmost territory of Japan. This is actually closer than Taiwan is to mainland China (about 100 miles)
"Trump Attorney 1" is Robert Corcoran who was forced to testify to the grand jury and hand over notes memorializing conversations with his client, Trump. Abolishing bedrock principles of attorney-client privilege: another casualty of the principle of throwing Trump in prison
"What happens if we just don't respond" is exactly the type of question you'd expect a client to ask his lawyer in the context of privileged, confidential communications. But here the DOJ decided to *seize* those communications and present them as evidence of criminal wrongdoing
Obliterating civil liberties and empowering the National Security State in the name of taking down Trump -- the neverending story
Excerpts from a 2016 amicus brief by the ACLU arguing the unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act. Get ready for lots of people to conveniently forget about all this
Some examples of previous Espionage Act prosecutions
Two years in prison for saying: “This is a war fostered by Morgan and the rich"
Five years in prison for saying: "America was buncoed into the war by munition makers"
The National Civil Liberties Bureau, which would later be reconstituted as the ACLU, was formed in direct response to the 1917 passage of the Espionage Act, and would go on to have its offices raided under the claimed auspices of the Espionage Act
Chris Christie on Trump, June 2023: "He's been a puppet of Putin from the time he was president, and it always was disturbing to me"
Chris Christie on Trump, March 2019:
Christie on Trump, July 2017: "He knows he didn't collude. And that's essentially what he's saying -- he didn't collude, and he knows of no collusion. And so he should be saying that"
Definitely what everyone who always thought Trump was "a puppet of Putin" was saying in 2017
The sudden visceral loathing between Christie and Trump is really something else. Christie was in Trump's inner-circle for years and ran his debate prep as recently as October 2020 -- famously getting COVID from the sessions and ending up hospitalized