Yeah. Too bad about Iowa though. I heard it's a lost cause.I truly think CA-39 will be an outlier and we'll clean up everywhere else in CA, maybe even Duncan Hunter's district. And Cisneros may still win, though I find him icky.
This relies on Dowd knowing the contours of Mueller's case, his witnesses' stories and the physical evidence.
How does he know these things?
At this point an IA-3 poll would be more useful. Can they switch over?The IA01 poll is halfway done and uh, I think we can be pretty sure that Rod Blum will not be a Congressman next term. lol.
It's not a dumb post. It's infuriating is what it is. Guy has the potential to be stopped from destroying countless women's lives. But no, she doesnt want it. She's already gonna get it now that her name is out there.
Yeah well, some people step up and some people don't. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good (wo)men to do nothing, and all that. Hopefully she'll reconsider. But if she doesn't celebrations all around for the old white men.
He doesn't and he says as much in the book He's frustrated because he felt like they gave Mueller what they felt was everything he asked for short of the interview with trump but Mueller didn't give an inch. And he speculates that it could mean Mueller has an ace in the hole that he's not aware of, so he goes into all of that.
Awful takes. We also don't know how any of this will play out, so everyone needs to chill.
I think Josh has a point here -- her lawyer never said that she won't appear, but she's saying the terms in which she wishes to appear under. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying, but it also doesn't mean that she won't show up. Again, I would take a wait and see approach here.
By the end of this poll, I predict Blum will have eight Comstocks out of ten.
So we have an interested narrator--whose reputation is at stake--claiming he doesn't know enough to make a determination either way, but you've gleaned that the investigation is a dud based on just that?
C'mon. Unpack this some more for us
He makes a determination, he thinks trump didn't collude. He didn't find anything to suggest that and just turned everything over to Mueller expecting a quick resolution That was a strategic mistake, of course, but with the access that he had to documents and transcripts, including the Flynn and comey stuff I would have expected a different legal strategy if he thought different any his client's culpability.
Eight ComstocksBy the end of this poll, I predict Blum will have eight Comstocks out of ten.
*tweet snippit*
they don't want to alienate women, want to protect Kavanaugh's rep., want to keep majority.
Yeah well, some people step up and some people don't. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good (wo)men to do nothing, and all that. Hopefully she'll reconsider. But if she doesn't celebrations all around for the old white men.
He makes a determination, he thinks trump didn't collude. He didn't find anything to suggest that and just turned everything over to Mueller expecting a quick resolution That was a strategic mistake, of course, but with the access that he had to documents and transcripts, including the Flynn and comey stuff I would have expected a different legal strategy if he thought different any his client's culpability.
It's been hours and Siena can't find 3 people in Houston to talk to.
Couldn't Dowd just as easily believe Trump is guilty, but has to avoid the appearance of back-stabbing so that he can claim to still be a Conservative in good standing for work?
Isn't there a link to unhide folks on your ignore list? Unless it's gone, mine always showed up at the bottom of the thread on the right hand side, above the comment boxSometimes I feel like I lose all context by adding people to my ignore list. I had to open this thread in another browser to figure out what was going on.
The only people who should be freaking out about a result like that are the ones who thought naively that O'Rourke had this in the bag. If it's more in the 4-6 point range like the author suggests, that's great for O'Rourke - it'd be an impressive overperformance and he still has time to catch up, even if that's incredibly hard.
And that's the thing - winning the Senate is going to be incredibly hard. Can't let a yucky poll kill our enthusiasm and momentum. O'Rourke would need pretty much everything to go right in order to win even the smallest of victories, but I said that about Doug Jones, too.
Yeah, don't treat 2018 like a "real election," Trump. That'll really help turnout.
It's genuinely ridiculous how fast everything has to go. Court trials can last up to a year or more, but we can't investigate someone for a permanent position for another month.
Isn't there a link to unhide folks on your ignore list? Unless it's gone, mine always showed up at the bottom of the thread on the right hand side, above the comment box
I mean, I guess?! It's not his book, I'm sure he did this on deep background or whatever but he didn't hold back on trump so I'm not sure how this would have helped in that scenario. My sense is that he probably wouldn't come out and accuse trump of being guilty if that's what he believed, but it's clear from the book he didn't believe that, and the level of cooperation with Mueller is tough to reconcile
He says trump is such a monumentally bad witness that he would certainly perjure himself if he talked to Mueller
Pete Gallego is on track to lose a Dem-held state senate seat, SD19. Good job, TXDP.
I think Dr Ford's lawyer is trying to avoid an Anita Hill circus where it turns into a character assassination game for the Republicans. Remember, Anita Hill took the lie detector test and Clarence Thomas refused to. But that was not enough even for 1991. It wont be for today either. I actually think the ball is in Kavanaugh's court and he should say he's willing to do an interview with FBI.
You understand why no one took your opinion at face value, right? Particularly considering your history of waving off Mueller's case in your <300 posts
I think Dr Ford's lawyer is trying to avoid an Anita Hill circus where it turns into a character assassination game for the Republicans. Remember, Anita Hill took the lie detector test and Clarence Thomas refused to. But that was not enough even for 1991. It wont be for today either. I actually think the ball is in Kavanaugh's court and he should say he's willing to do an interview with FBI.
Pete Gallego is on track to lose a Dem-held state senate seat, SD19. Good job, TXDP.
There's literally nothing in the book to come to that conclusion even if for some crazy reason you take everyone's statements and proxy leaks at face value. The book is really not about that anyway.
I mean, I guess?! It's not his book, I'm sure he did this on deep background or whatever but he didn't hold back on trump so I'm not sure how this would have helped in that scenario. My sense is that he probably wouldn't come out and accuse trump of being guilty if that's what he believed, but it's clear from the book he didn't believe that, and the level of cooperation with Mueller is tough to reconcile
He says trump is such a monumentally bad witness that he would certainly perjure himself if he talked to Mueller