ChrisWeigant.com

What Iowa And New Hampshire Might Mean For The Democratic Field

[ Posted Tuesday, January 21st, 2020 – 19:05 UTC ]

Today is the first day of the impeachment trial, some of which I watched earlier. However, nothing of any real note will happen today as the whole debate currently is over the rules the Senate will agree to for the trial itself -- and Mitch McConnell seems to have the GOP votes locked down to push through his own version of the rules. Notably, these will not be as stringent as he initially proposed, but that victory apparently came from pushback from within his own party, not from Democrats. In any case, we'll have plenty of time in the coming days to discuss the trial, so today instead I decided to take a look at what Iowa and New Hampshire will mean for the leading Democratic presidential candidates instead.

As many have already noted, four candidates for president will be absent from the campaign trail until after the trial concludes: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennet. The first three of those have an actual shot at the nomination, which could give the other two frontrunners (Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg) a clear advantage in the final days before Iowa and, perhaps, New Hampshire vote (depending on how long the trial lasts).

How this affects the results is anyone's guess, but then again what those results may be is also anyone's guess. The final debate before the first votes are cast was held last week, but there hasn't been much polling on either the state or the national level since then, so it's hard to tell if it had any real impact or not.

State-level polling is always notoriously less accurate than national polling. In 2016, the national polling came pretty close to predicting the outcome in the overall voting (Clinton beating Trump by three million votes), but some of the state polling failed to predict the outcome, leading to Trump's narrow Electoral College victory. State-level polling struggles for two main reasons: breadth and expertise. National polls normally don't conclude until they've got a big enough sample to lower the margin of error to around three percent or less. This usually means polling at least 1,000 people. State-level polls may have error margins above five percent, due to only polling (at times) 400 or 500 people. The organizations which conduct the polling at the state level are often local operations (such as in-state university or newspaper polls), and therefore may not have the expertise to properly analyze their own methods for bias or other factors which may skew the results.

I say all this up front mostly because I am not going to rely too much on the state-level polls from New Hampshire and Iowa in this column. There just aren't enough recent ones and even those that do exist have shown wildly inconsistent results. So here instead are my takes on the top five candidates and what victories or defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire would mean for their candidacies.

 

Joe Biden

If Joe Biden were to win the Iowa caucuses and then go on to win the New Hampshire primary, he might just be seen as unstoppable from that point on. If he shows even a strong showing in the first two states he is quite likely to pick up South Carolina as well, and that could propel him to a dominant position heading into Super Tuesday, no matter what happens in Nevada.

Biden has led some polls in both states in January, but he hasn't done so well in other polls, so anything is possible for him in both states -- from a first place finish to not even making the top three.

If Biden doesn't win but still has a strong showing (second or third place) in both states, he will still likely be able to use South Carolina as a backstop and head into Super Tuesday in fairly strong shape. However, it might matter who he loses to if he only places second or third. Losing to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be as bad as losing to Pete Buttigieg, because Biden and Buttigieg are seen as competing for the moderate vote. If Biden can best Buttigieg in both states, he'll be in relatively strong position even if Sanders and/or Warren actually beat him in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Biden comes in fourth place in either state, however, he's going to be seen as struggling, and he may have an uphill climb to keep African-American voters in South Carolina still convinced he's the most electable candidate in the field. If your argument is "I can win!" then it's tough to square that with one or even two solid losses in the first two states.

 

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is polling well in both New Hampshire and Iowa, at least in some polls (he is further down in others). This means he's got a real shot at winning one or even both states. However, winning Iowa is going to be much more important for his candidacy than winning New Hampshire, and not just because it votes first.

Bernie's appeal in New Hampshire is often written off by the pundits "because he's from the state next door." Now, this is debatable, since Vermont and New Hampshire famously don't see eye-to-eye on much of anything, including politics. But being more well-known certainly helps. So Bernie winning New Hampshire may be largely ignored if it happens -- because many already expect him to do so -- but a win in Iowa would be much more momentous. Ironically, if Bernie won Iowa he'd probably have a better chance at winning New Hampshire, but "winning the first two states" won't be as important as "winning the first state" in the media (that's my guess, at any rate).

Of course, since there haven't been many polls since the debate, nobody has any idea of whether the Warren-Sanders dustup has had any real effect on the supporters of the two candidates, or the still-undecided voters. And if there will be an effect, it's still uncertain who will benefit and who will not. This is quite likely to be analyzed to death no matter what the results of Iowa and New Hampshire are, if past performance is any indicator.

This is why it might ultimately be more important to Bernie to beat Warren in both states than it is to come in first. If he is seen as on the ascendant with progressive voters, that is going to weaken Warren, perhaps fatally. However, if Warren comes out on top of this and Bernie loses to her in both states, the dynamics will be flipped and Bernie will be the one seen as badly struggling. A split decision -- Bernie takes New Hampshire while Warren takes Iowa, for instance -- would just muddy the waters further. But since both are competing to be the "progressive not-Biden" candidate, it will be crucial to see how they do against each other when the first votes are cast.

If Bernie loses to Warren in both states and places no higher than third (or possibly even second), his campaign might begin to lose steam. Bernie's also got a solid shot at winning Nevada, the next state to vote, due to his strength with the Unions. But if he underperforms in the first two states, Biden could easily beat him in Nevada (of the first four states, Nevada has the least amount of polling done, I should mention). If Bernie can't beat Warren anywhere by Super Tuesday, then his candidacy might be in terminal decline and the cries for him to exit the race and give Warren a clear path will grow very loud indeed.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is in almost the same position as Sanders, as the other side of the coin. If Warren beats expectations and wins either Iowa or New Hampshire, her campaign will have sprung back from a slump and be seen as the strongest "progressive non-Biden" candidate in the field. If she wins both states, then people will begin talking about a two-person race between her and Biden, most likely. This could vastly improve her chances for Super Tuesday.

But, as with Bernie, it may depend more on how she does against him rather than her absolute standing in the Iowa and New Hampshire results. If Warren beats Bernie twice, then it will be Bernie who gets the calls to exit the race. If they split one-for-two, then both will soldier onwards. If Warren loses to Bernie in both states, then she will be the one to get the calls to exit the race, to give him a clear progressive path forward.

There's one interesting possibility in here that few have noticed, however. Let's say that Warren places first in Iowa to Bernie's second, and then in New Hampshire the results are flipped, with Bernie winning and Warren placing second. If that happens, it would mean Biden was doing no better than third and the press might actually begin talking about the race as a two-person contest between the two progressive candidates. This, no doubt, would set off a panic attack among the Democratic Party establishment and we could look forward to smear articles appearing in the media without end bemoaning the lack of a "centrist" candidate. This might not help Biden or Buttigieg much, but it may instead pave the way for Michael Bloomberg to become much more important heading into Super Tuesday. It's kind of a longshot, but it remains a possibility worth mentioning.

 

Pete Buttigieg

Of the top four candidates, Buttigieg has both the most to win and the most to lose in the first two contests. All four of these candidates, I should mention, already have the money to continue their campaigns at least through Super Tuesday, but beyond that their fundraising might begin to dry up if they don't post any significant results.

If Buttigieg wins either Iowa or New Hampshire, then he's going to get a fresh look from a whole bunch of voters in other states. A Buttigieg win will be seen as both a major upset and a major blow to Joe Biden in particular. Biden could well recover with a solid South Carolina win, if the African-American voters continue to show him strong support, but any Buttigieg win in any of the first four states is going to breathe some serious life into his candidacy.

Even if Mayor Pete manages a second place or third place showing in either of the first two states, he's going to tout it as a big win. He'll be right, in a way, because to do so means beating one of the three candidates polling better than him on a national level. That will be an impressive feat for an underdog, to be sure, and will guarantee Buttigieg will be a factor in the race at least through Super Tuesday.

If Buttigieg only manages one third place finish in the first two states and comes in fourth in the other one (it really wouldn't matter which state was which), then the establishment Democrats are going to start calling for him to drop out to give Biden a better chance. "You're young," they'll tell him, "and surely Biden will consider you for veep or a cabinet position...."

If Buttigieg comes in fourth (or worse, for that matter) in both Iowa and New Hampshire, these voices will become very loud indeed. If Biden is besting Buttigieg heading into South Carolina, then he'll almost certainly beat him again there, too. Nevada is a wild card, but it may not matter that much (unless Buttigieg pulls off a surprising first-place finish there).

Pete Buttigieg essentially mistimed his peak -- it came too early and it wasn't big enough. He never approached even 15 percent in the national polls, and that number is important because failing to hit 15 percent in the state voting means reaping no delegates to the convention at all. Now, Buttigieg has always polled higher in Iowa than nationally, so he does have the possibility of a major upset -- even if he were just to beat Biden and still place behind Bernie and Warren. But he's got to get to at least third in one of the two first states to be seen as viable afterwards, even if he does still have enough money to continue his campaign.

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar's entire candidacy is going to hinge on how well she does in Iowa. If she can't even break 15 percent and win some delegates, then it won't matter how many fawning news stories are written about her, her campaign will for all practical purposes be at an end. She may end up on some veep shortlists, but that'll be it.

Klobuchar, after all, is from another "state next door" in Iowa, so if she can't make it there she likely won't be able to make it anywhere. She has seen a last-minute surge in both national and Iowa polls, but it is a fairly modest surge and it may not be enough. About her only hope at this point is that the spat between Warren and Sanders turns enough Iowans off of both their candidacies and she alone reaps the benefits. Barring that, she's going to have an uphill climb to meet that 15 percent minimum to gain delegates. And in Iowa, it will be more apparent than elsewhere due to their caucus system.

Klobuchar could have a breakout moment if she places even in the top four in Iowa, because to do so she'll have to beat one of the top-ranked candidates. Even if she managed fourth place in a single state, she'll likely continue her campaign hoping for one of the frontrunners to stumble badly somehow. Winning even fourth place in both states would allow her to argue that she's better positioned than whichever candidates (or candidates) she beat to get there.

This is likely to devolve into a contest between Buttigieg and Klobuchar for the "moderate not-Biden" candidate label. How this plays out is anyone's guess, but the two will likely be seen as fighting for the scraps the top three candidates are leaving behind.

Of course there's always the remote possibility that Klobuchar does much better than expected. Say she places first or even second in Iowa (hey, it could happen). Then she follows this up with a surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire (even just third place might qualify). With those results at her back, she can make a whole new argument that she's the "electable" one the media should be paying attention to. And she'll have a strong argument to make, in that case.

Barring that -- and I should mention that it's the most remote longshot discussed in this entire article -- it seems almost certain that Amy Klobuchar may not even be around for Super Tuesday. If she places fifth place in both the first states, then not only will the pressure be on for her to clear the "moderate" lane for both Buttigieg and Biden, but her money supply will likely quickly dry up as well. If she does no better than fifth, then even money says she'll drop out before Super Tuesday even dawns.

 

Conclusions

The polls are all over the map in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so there really isn't even a clear favorite in either state, at this point. This may become clearer the closer we get (many polls will wait until just before voting day to release their results), but then again it may not -- or it may even be incorrect (surprise finishes have happened in both states that the polling has not foreseen, in the past).

The Iowa results are going to be examined under a microscope, and this year there will be more to look at than before. They're going to announce three winners, in essence, and they might not all be the same candidate. They're going to announce the official winner -- the one who got the most votes in all the caucuses combined when the final vote was taken -- as well as the final tally of delegates won. What's new this time around is that the state will also be announcing the absolute vote totals for the first round of caucus voting -- before any of the candidates were eliminated. This will allow candidates who didn't clear the 15-percent barrier to see how close they came. It will also show which candidates are doing better in picking up the "second choice" votes. This won't be as significant as it would have been in years past, because almost all the other states have now moved to a primary system rather than a caucus. In a primary, except in places with ranked-choice voting, the second choices of voters are meaningless. But it might give a glimpse into which candidate might benefit from all the minor candidates bowing out of the race.

What it will likely do -- unless the same candidate wins in all three categories -- is muddy the waters even more. You'll have multiple candidates claiming they "won" Iowa (or placed second, or third...). It'll be interesting to see if the media picks up on this disparity, or if they just go with the overall winner and ignore all the other microdata.

At this point, Joe Biden still has the edge, heading into the first contests. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar are nipping at his heels, but they may be a lot further back than many pundits realize. Contrast that to the almost-equally-balanced fight between Warren and Sanders for the progressive vote, and the very real possibility exists that Warren and Sanders will expend so much energy fighting each other than Biden skates home with the nomination.

Of course, looming over all this analysis is this year's wild card -- the quixotic campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His campaign will likely be studied by political scientists for decades to come, because he is so unique that he'll be setting his own precedent no matter what happens. He's a billionaire who is happy to spend whatever it takes -- he's spent over a quarter-billion dollars already, so far -- and he's not running as an independent (meaning comparisons to H. Ross Perot won't really apply). Also, he is defying conventional political wisdom by totally ignoring the first four voting states and instead concentrating all his vast campaign resources on Super Tuesday. If the field is still unsettled after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina vote, then he will be positioned to swoop into the top ranks in one decisive day. Of course, he'll have to have a perfect storm of events for that to happen, but it is looking more and more likely that he might just get that chance.

Obviously, I haven't ruled out much of anything here today. This is a reflection of how wide-open the race now is, heading into the first two early-voting states. It's even conceivable that all five (six, counting Bloomberg) candidates will still be running hard against each other when we get to Super Tuesday. This is twice the number of "tickets out of Iowa" that normally exist, but then again winnowing the field even down to six will be a notable achievement for a Democratic Party that has seen a mind-numbing twenty-nine candidates in their field this election cycle.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

55 Comments on “What Iowa And New Hampshire Might Mean For The Democratic Field”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wonder how the polls will reflect the impact of testimony from Senator Biden to the senate impeachment trial, should we all be so fortunate as to see that testimony actually occur.

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i say call everyone

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, for dessert ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you watching … it seems to me to be a very weak case Trump's attorneys are making, no?

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    President Trump’s impeachment managers made little secret Tuesday that they’d rather put House Democrats on trial than Trump. They repeatedly alleged mistreatment of Trump in his impeachment, rather than dwelling upon the evidence against him.

    But in one instance, one of them badly overreached.

    Appearing shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern time on the Senate floor, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Jay Sekulow offered an indignant rebuke of the Democrats’ impeachment managers. What he was so incensed about: that they had allegedly referred to “lawyer lawsuits” in prosecuting the case against Trump.

    “And by the way — lawyer lawsuits?” Sekulow began. “Lawyer lawsuits? We’re talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members — the managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits? The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits. It’s disrespecting the Constitution of the United States to even say that in this Chamber — lawyer lawsuits.”

    Sekulow added that it was “a dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of a president of the United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits. The Constitution allows it, if necessary. The Constitution demands it, if necessary.”
    There was one problem: Sekulow was referring to a quote that doesn’t appear to exist. He appeared to have badly misunderstood what one of the Democratic impeachment managers said.

    Shortly prior, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) laid out her case against Trump. In the course of it, she referred to “FOIA lawsuits” — not “lawyer lawsuits” — referring to the Freedom of Information Act.

    And it wasn’t just one wayward acronym that could explain the misunderstanding; Demings’s remarks repeatedly referenced the law.

    “The president’s lawyers may suggest that the House should sought — that this House should have sought these materials in court, or awaited further lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act, a.k.a. FOIA lawsuits,” Demings said. “Any such suggestion is meritless.”

    She added soon after: “FOIA lawsuits filed by third parties cannot serve as a credible alternative to congressional oversight.”

    The next person to refer to “lawsuits” after that was Sekulow, eight minutes later.

    What’s even more remarkable about the flap is that the White House actually stood by Sekulow’s allegation. Asked about the remark by reporters later in the night, White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland reportedly walked away, only to return a while later — apparently after checking? — and suggest that Sekulow had not erred.
    “When you read the transcript, it says ‘lawyer lawsuit,’ ” he said.

    It’s not clear to what transcript Ueland is referring, but the Federal Document Clearing House transcript includes no references to “lawyer lawsuits” besides Sekulow’s. And video of Demings’s remarks are clear that she did, in fact, say “FOIA lawsuits” both times. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) also referred to “FOIA lawsuits” shortly before 2 p.m. — hours before Sekulow’s retort. There are no other references in the transcript to “lawsuits” that could even have been reasonably mistaken for “lawyer lawsuits.”

    It might seem like a small point in the grand scheme of things, even if you set aside Sekulow’s demonstrative and indignant response to something that doesn’t appear to have actually been said. But if anything, the White House’s remarkable double-down would seem to speak volumes about its strategy here — and its devotion to the facts.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/21/an-embarrassing-moment-trumps-legal-team/#comments-wrapper

    This is such a perfect example of how desperately Trump’s defense team wants to avoid having to discuss the actual facts of the case.

  6. [6] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    it seems to me to be a very weak case Trump's attorneys are making, no?

    They aren’t addressing the case at all! They are doing all that they can to make this about anything else. They are upset at how unfair it was that Trump was not allowed to have a say in what evidence could be used against him!

    It is sad at how blatantly guilty Trump’s team must believe that he is!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They are doing all that they can to make this about anything else.

    They are not even doing THAT very well. They must be thinking that they don't have to.

    They are banking on an assumption that says most voters are not following this impeachment process very closely and that arguments of process and crying "Unfair!" often enough will strike a chord with these voters that plays to their advantage.

    Also, they must necessarily think that those of us who are following and watching are pretty obtuse.

    And, whose bright idea was it to have Bondi on the team … oh, wait ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One point I think Schiff didn't make … when the president's lawyer said that at least 23 of the House subpoenas were not properly authorized because they were served before the House voted to impeach the president.

    What!?

    Those subpoenas were served during the INVESTIGATION phase of this affair. Now, it just so happens that the investigation in this case was done by a select House committee on impeachment … an investigation that resulted in the House vote to impeach.

    How can Trump's lawyers argue that the subpoenas served during the investigative phase were not authorized by way of an impeachment vote and therefore invalid!?

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How can Trump's lawyers argue that the subpoenas served during the investigative phase were not authorized by way of an impeachment vote and therefore invalid!?

    The fact that they are able to do it while keeping a straight face is what I find most amazing.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Didn't I say this would be fun!? God, I hope Biden testifies - the father, I mean, though the son would probably do just fine.

    I don't think Trump is going to be too satisfied with his team after he reads the NYTimes. Heh.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, it's his favourite paper of record, you know. :)

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    From previous commentary.

    What does Valerie Jarrett have to do with your claim that Trump is the one person who gets to decide who is and who isn’t part of our government?

    Really??? Think about it. It will come to you.. :eyeroll:

    MLK Jr’s gun ownership made him 4.5 times more likely than non-gun owners to be killed by a gun.

    Facts to support??

    Even if it were true, so??

    Owning a car makes you 4.5 times likely than non-car owners to die in a car accident..

    It's a bullshit stat that says NOTHING..

    Remind everyone, based on your 25 years of claiming dishonestly of having a history in law enforcement, how EXACTLY the Democrats were supposed to provide Trump with “Due Process” during the investigative impeachment inquiry?

    The same way House GOP provided Clinton with due process...

    DUH...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Impeachment was a bad idea from the beginning. There was no way it could ever have gone except as some sort of bogus exoneration. That much, I was right about. However, it's looking as though I may turn out to have been wrong about the trial of Joe Biden.

    Agreed on all points...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Today is the first day of the impeachment trial, some of which I watched earlier. However, nothing of any real note will happen today as the whole debate currently is over the rules the Senate will agree to for the trial itself -- and Mitch McConnell seems to have the GOP votes locked down to push through his own version of the rules.

    Yep... SUCK IT, Dumbocrats!!! :D

    How does it feel when the shoe is on the OTHER hand, eh?? :D

    Funny how chaotic the Dem primary is, eh?? :D

    Ya'all are looking at a REAL shot of a contested convention.. :D

    Wouldn't THAT be a hoot.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Are you watching … it seems to me to be a very weak case Trump's attorneys are making, no?

    How so??

    Since no crime has been committed and no crime has even been charged, that would seem to be the best avenue of defense..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    Glad ta see you have adopted my commenting format, eh? :D

    That's just GOTTA sting.. :D

    This is such a perfect example of how desperately Trump’s defense team wants to avoid having to discuss the actual facts of the case.

    First off, yer "facts" are from WaPoop so are not really facts..

    Second, can you explain EXACTLY why that load of BS is a "perfect example"??

    Finally, Dumbocrats DON'T HABE any "actual facts of the case".. All they have is rumor, innuendo and bullshit..

    Which is EXACTLY why there wasn't any REAL criminal charge in the Articles Of Impeachment...

    Basically, Dumbocrats have charged President Trump with BEING AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE and INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHEN DUMBOCRATS WANTED TO KNOW SOMETHING...

    And, while it's true that Dumbocrats have PLENTY of facts to support those {sic} "charges", it doesn't mean diddley squat because those are against the law..

    DUH....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    They aren’t addressing the case at all!

    Of course not.. Because Dumbocrats aren't MAKING any sort of criminal case..

    It is sad at how blatantly guilty Trump’s team must believe that he is!

    Abso-frakin-loutly, President Trump is guilty..

    To the "charges" of BEING AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE and INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHEN DUMBOCRATS WANTED TO KNOW SOMETHING President Trump is absolutely "guilty" ...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Those subpoenas were served during the INVESTIGATION phase of this affair.

    But at the time THOSE subpoenas were served, it wasn't an IMPEACHMENT investigation...

    It's rather ironic.. Democrats nearly **STOPPED** issuing subpoenas in Sep, once it DID become an impeachment investigation.. :D

    It's almost as if Democrats KNEW that they would lose in the courts..

    How can Trump's lawyers argue that the subpoenas served during the investigative phase were not authorized by way of an impeachment vote and therefore invalid!?</i.

    Because the subpoenas that PRESIDENT Trump's lawyers were talking about were all the subpoenas that were issued PRIOR to Pelosi's bonehead announcement in Sep that Democrats were starting impeachment..

    Once one looks at things objectively, the FACTS become readily apparent.. :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Didn't I say this would be fun!? God, I hope Biden testifies - the father, I mean, though the son would probably do just fine.

    Hehehehe

    So, NOW that it looks like Biden is gonna be dragged off the campaign trail (EXACTLY as I predicted)... NOW yer saying you WANT Biden to be dragged off the campaign trail?? :D

    This is going to be a disaster for Biden and the Democrats..

    This is NOT going to be a "debate" for Biden.. Biden will only be allowed to speak when spoken to..

    On his BEST day, Joe is a gaffe machine.. Imagine what's going to happen when he is under oath on the witness stand being questioned as a hostile witness..

    President Trump's lawyers are going to TEAR Biden apart!!

    Actually, it's going to be a two-fer for President Trump... Totally make his case *AND* destroy Biden as a viable candidate...

    It's going to be sad to see, though...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, the person that President Trump wants on the witness stand more so than Biden is the whistleblower..

    Once the connection between the whistleblower and Schiff-head is proven, this faux impeachment coup falls apart..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Steve Hilton: The impeachment is a joke and shows the difference between Trump's results and Democrats' stunts

    On Wednesday, the day after Democrats' debate in Iowa, we saw what has to be one of the most stunning political contrast of all time.

    As I was watching, I put out this tweet, President Trump signing a historic trade deal while Nancy Pelosi was yucking it up with her pathetic impeachment pens. In my usual measured way, I called her a "divisive, spiteful, hate-filled charlatan."
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/steve-hilton-the-impeachment-is-a-joke-and-shows-the-difference-between-trumps-results-and-democrats-stunts

    Dumbocrats play games and yuk up the "serious" and "solemn" duty of this faux impeachment coup..

    By contrast, President Trump is getting things done that help the American people and help America...

    Dumbocrats are going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I have to remind my fellow Weigantians of the FACTS and of reality...

    This faux impeachment coup *ONLY* ends one way...

    With President Trump remaining as President Of The United States...

    But there is another secondary result..

    All Democrats have to show for their 2 years control of the House is their failed Russia Collusion delusion and their failed faux impeachment coup... :D

    How ANYONE can claim Dims will retain the House is beyond me.. :smirk" :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I am surprised you didn't mention the wild-card in your STATE OF THE PRIMARY commentary.. :D

    Why is Hillary attacking Bernie now?

    Today’s edition of this never-ending saga involves Hillary Clinton attacking Sen. Bernie Sanders, her old primary rival and one of the leading candidates to take on Donald Trump later this year. The shots appeared in the pages of the Hollywood Reporter. You see, the geniuses in the entertainment industry have determined that what the general public is clamoring for is a new four hour (!) documentary about Mrs. Clinton, and she gave an interview to the venerable entertainment publication to promote it. (We can tell it’s a hard-hitting documentary by the fact that the subject it focuses on is out promoting it.)

    In the interview, the Reporter notes that in the forthcoming documentary, Mrs. Clinton says of Mr. Sanders, “He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” (Yes, Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for being a “career politician.”)
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/21/why-hillary-attacking-bernie-now/

    SSSHHHEEEEEE'SSS BAAAAAAACK!!!!

    hehehehehehe

    It's simply AMAZING that anyone would think that "{Democrats} are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults."

    :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Year Ago, the Media Mangled the Covington Catholic Story. What Happened Next Was Even Worse.

    Journalists and pundits who frantically doubled down on their initial bad takes deserve more criticism.
    https://reason.com/2020/01/21/covington-catholic-media-nick-sandmann-lincoln-memorial/

    Amazing how utterly moronic the Trump/America haters are...

    They even attack a KID just because he wears a MAGA hat...

    Have they no decency???

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the weekend of January 18, 2019, a short video appeared on Twitter that purported to show a group of Catholic high school boys—one young man, Nicholas Sandmann, in particular—harassing a Native American elder named Nathan Phillips on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

    One year later, the media's reckless mishandling of the story stands as an important warning against the kind of agenda-driven, outrage-mongering clickbait that unfortunately thrives in the world of online journalism.

    But no less noteworthy was the news cycle that followed the initial flawed coverage, which featured a host of ideologically-motivated partisans doubling down on their initial assumption, digging for new information to justify it, and reassuring themselves that they were right all along. Sandmann and his MAGA hat-wearing friends had identified themselves as members of Team Trump, and thus the national shaming they endured was deserved, this thinking went. Indeed, those who had defended the boys by disputing some aspects of the encounter—including me, in an article for Reason that changed many people's minds about what had happened—were engaged in "gaslighting": trying to make people think that something they saw hadn't really happened.

    It's really sad that Democrats stoop to such low-life tactics...

    And the support they get from Weigantians?? :(

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sandmann's subsequent lawsuits have kept the Covington-sympathetic public focused on several of the outlets that misreported the initial story: CNN, The Washington Post, and others. Indeed, these publications certainly deserve criticism, independent of the merits of the individual lawsuits. But these outlets' Covington-related sins pale in comparison to those who continued to malign the teens long after the additional video footage was available.

    It's important to recall that the mainstream media's textbook rush-to-judgment about the Covington teens relied on two key pieces of faulty evidence. The first was the misleading video clip, which did not contain important context about what had happened immediately before the encounter between Sandmann and Phillips.

    The second was Phillips' brazenly inaccurate statements to the press: He claimed that he had intervened to protect the third group, the Black Hebrew Israelites, from the "predatory" boys, even though the boys were not threatening anyone. He also claimed he had heard a "build the wall" chant, even though no evidence of this has emerged in any of the additional footage. Phillips, it turned out, was a false witness: an on-the-ground source whose information seemed credible, but wasn't. (In fact, Phillips is a charlatan with a long history of allowing the media to misrepresent him as a Vietnam War veteran, even though he never served abroad or saw combat.)

    Trump/America haters will believe ANYTHING.. Just as long as it fuels their hate...

    #sad

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    In hindsight, the slanted nature of the coverage is almost comical. The Detroit Free Press described the video as depicting "Phillips peacefully drumming and singing, while surrounded by a hostile crowd" and suggested that this "illustrates the nation's political and racial tensions." The Daily Beast's story was filed under "AWFUL" and described the video as "disturbing." Its first several paragraphs quote directly from Phillips. NPR asserted that the boys had mocked the Native American man. In story after story, news outlets claimed the Covington kids had shouted "build the wall." Again, the sole source of this claim was Phillips.

    The news stories, at least, were edited; Twitter is not. Thus the reaction on social media was even more unhinged. Reza Aslan, a scholar and television pundit on CNN, tweeted that Sandmann had a "punchable" face. His CNN colleague Bakari Sellers agreed. BuzzFeed's Anne Petersen tweeted that Sandmann's face reminded her of Brett Kavanaugh's—and this wasn't intended as a compliment.Vulture writer Erik Abriss tweeted that he wanted the kids and their parents to die. Kathy Griffin said the high schoolers ought to be doxxed. As a USA Today retrospective noted, "comedian Patton Oswalt called the students in the video 'bland, frightened, forgettable kids who'll grow up to be bland, frightened, forgotten adult wastes.'…Writer Michael Green, referring to Sandmann's apparent smirking at the Native American man, wrote: 'A face like that never changes. This image will define his life. No one need ever forgive him.'…Huffington Post reporter Christopher Mathias explicitly compared the students to violent segregationists."

    Someone please remind me again of the "peaceful" and "tolerant" and "respectful" nature of the Democrat Party??

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the bona fide FACTS to the contrary..

    Today's Democrat Party... :eyeroll:

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    But as the better-known news outlets continue to garner the lion's share of the opprobrium, it's important to remember that there are plenty of **commentary writers** who continue to think—wrongfully, and shamefully—that the media had it basically right the first time.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Turning to more recent Left Wing Media mishaps... :D

    The Liberal Media Totally Eats It With Their Fake News Coverage of VA's Pro-Gun Rights Rally

    Virginia Citizen’s Defense League had their Lobby Day yesterday. Thousands attended. It was probably the best turnout in years. And that’s the keyword here, folks: years. The VCDL has been organizing this event for quite some time, but if you’d check out MSDNC, CNN, and other liberal outlets infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome, you’d think this was the inaugural Nazi event in Richmond. Yes, this was a crowd filled with white nationalists, who were really mutants because they morphed into Asians, blacks, and women. Like the evil chameleons that they are, they mutated into folks who aren’t white and also didn’t commit any crimes. There were no arrests made at the rally. Of course, I’m being sarcastic. This was never nor has it ever been a Nazi gathering. You’d have to snort a ton of cocaine laced with Drano to believe that garbage lie, but the liberal media was at it again, peddling straight fakes news about the violence that was to come because law-abiding citizens were making their voices heard on gun rights.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/01/21/im-stunned-to-see-the-fake-news-liberal-media-eat-it-in-their-coverage-of-virginias-progun-rights-rally-n2559835

    Are ya'all seeing the pattern here??

    The Left Wing media that ya'all like to quote ad nasuem is PROVEN to be full of kaa-kaa time and time and time again...

    As always, the FACTS prove to be the COMPLETE opposite of what the Hate Trump/America media outlets are putting out..

    Ya'all need to find some new sources because yer current ones have absolutely ZERO credibility...

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Why do we put up with this charade every four years?

    The only real reason we start in Iowa every time is so the big money interests can get a laugh.

    They must think it is funny that the Iowa winners become the front runners so that only candidates that could say "I owe a" lot to the big money interests will be in a position to move on in the drawn out primary process.

    Why do we do this?

    Why do Iowa voters get to decide and pick the front runners now while voters in other states have to wait and may not have their candidate still in the race or the race may even be decided before they get a chance to vote?

    So the big money interests can control the race and make it more expensive to keep big money candidates dominant.

    And so the media can write lots of speculation articles about what each step in the process might mean in the grand scheme of things (scheme being the operative word).

    Let's scrap this ridiculous process and go for one national primary day in May or June so every voter in every state can fully participate in the primaries and allow all citizens, all candidates and all parties in all states to participate in the primaries.

    We are stuck with this unfair process for 2020.

    But that doesn't mean that you, CW, have to play along throughout the process.

    You could do more than just speculate on the show five days a week.

    You could actually do your job and set aside one day a week where you speculate on alternatives to the show such as a national primary day or ideas like One Demand.

    These columns promoting the show and pretending there are no other choices is the equivalent of NFL Live where they are supposed to talk about the NFL spending the entire hour and a half of their show talking about fantasy football.

    Get Real and become part of the solution.

    This devotion to the show of yours is even stupider than fantasy football because unlike fantasy football and the NFL our political process is NOT supposed to be a game even though it currently is being praticed and reported as a game and a fantasy.

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz[3],
    Pie of course.
    JL

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow hammed Nadler for suggesting that executive privilege, a longstanding constitutional principle protecting executive branch deliberations from disclosure, wasn't legitimate. The White House has said the privilege prevents Democrats from forcing administration officials to provide testimony before Congress.

    "At about 12:10 a.m., January 22, the chairman of the [House] Judiciary Committee, in this body, on the floor of this Senate, said 'executive privilege and other nonsense,'" Sekulow said. "Now think about that for a moment. 'Executive privilege and other nonsense.' Mr. Nadler, it is not 'nonsense.' These are privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. And to shred the Constitution, on the floor of the Senate. To serve what purpose? The Senate is not on trial. The Constitution doesn't allow what just took place. Look what we've dealt with for the last, now 13 hours. And we hopefully are closing the proceedings, but not on a very high note."

    Sekulow accused Democrats of hypocrisy given that Attorney General Eric Holder had similarly cited executive privilege to avoid providing documents as part of House Republicans' "Fast and Furious" gunrunning probe. Holder was later held in contempt of Congress.

    "'Only guilty people try to hide evidence?'" Sekulow asked, quoting Nadler incredulously. "So, I guess when President Obama instructed his attorney general to not give information, he was guilty of a crime? That's the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that the way you view the United States Constitution? Because that's not the way it was written, that is not the way it's interpreted, and that's not the way the American people should have to live."

    Get that??

    When Odumbo invoked Executive Privilege, it was NOT "nonsense"...

    But when a POTUS with an -R after his name invokes Executive Privilege, it's "nonsense"..

    The hypocrisy of Dumbocrats is beyond the pale..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Mcconnell, President Trump and the GOP win the day!! :D

    McConnell's rules package
    Under McConnell's final, adopted rules resolution, both the Democrats' impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers will now have three session days, totaling 24 hours, allocated to present their case.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-impeachment-trial-begins-with-win-for-the-white-house-as-dems-rules-proposal-is-nixed

    There is simply NO WAY that President Trump will be removed from office.. :D

    How do ya like DEM apples, Dims!??? :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    The work ya did was PHENOMENAL!!!!! :D

    Now I just have to learn the words and match them to the tempo!! :D

    I'll be sure and vid the karoake on the cruise and send ya a copy.. :D

    Thanx again.. MUCH appreciated.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans unite, vote after vote
    With the rules debate resolved, all indications are that the days ahead are likely to be acrimonious. Shortly before the trial dragged on overnight into the wee hours Wednesday with a series of Democrat-proposed subpoena requests that Republicans methodically shot down one-by-one, McConnell had offered Democrats an option: bundle all of their document requests into a "stack" for a single vote, so that the process could move along.

    You see the Democrat dilemma???

    They CAN'T win..

    This only ends ONE way....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    In all, the Senate handed President Trump a series of wins throughout the day Tuesday by voting 53-47 ten separate times to effectively kill a series of previous proposals from Schumer to subpoena White House, State Department, Defense Department, and Office of Management and Budget documents, as well as testimony from acting White House Chief of Staff Mike Mulvaney, Blair and Duffey, respectively.

    All the Democrats are succeeding in doing is handing President Trump victory after victory after victory..

    Thereby GUARANTEEING A Trump Re-Election..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, a report emerged in Politico that Democrats' lead impeachment manager, California Rep. Adam Schiff, may have publicly mischaracterized evidence in the case. Schiff had asserted that Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas “continued to try to arrange a meeting with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky" -- but the "mr Z" that Parnas was referring to in his text message was apparently not Ukraine's president, but Ukrainian businessman Mykola Zlochevsky.

    Separately, as Democrats' amendments were being summarily shot down, reports emerged that some Democrats were privately considering something of a compromise: calling for the testimony of Hunter Biden in exchange for the appearance of some key administration officials. Biden obtained a lucrative board role with a Ukrainian company while his father, Joe Biden, was overseeing Ukrainian policy as vice president.

    It's ALL bad news for Democrats.... :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    At one point during the proceedings, former Bill Clinton press secretary and CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart wrote on Twitter that Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz could go to "prison," noting that Cruz's Twitter account was posting tweets during the trial. Lockhart was quickly mocked by social media users pointing out that it's common for senators' Twitter accounts to be run by staff, and Cruz's representatives confirmed to Fox News that Cruz had not sneaked his phone into the chamber.

    Even Cruz's staff couldn't resist poking some fun at Lockhart, writing "COME AND TAKE IT," with an image of a cellphone.

    About the only GOOD news for Democrats is McConnell has prevailed and this faux impeachment coup will die an ignoble and quick death.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Making great progress in @Davos. Tremendous numbers of companies will be coming, or returning, to the USA. Hottest Economy! JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!"
    -President Trump

    While Democrat frak around with this faux impeachment coup...

    President Trump is working for the American people.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do ya'all ever wonder why EVERYTHING is going President Trump's way??? :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gabbard hits Clinton with $50 million defamation lawsuit over 'Russian asset' remarks
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gabbard-hits-clinton-with-50-million-defamation-lawsuit-over-russian-asset-remarks

    Dem Civil War.. LOVE IT!!! :D

    So much for the claim that Democrats can be respectful to each other :D

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    My pleasure.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    “You’re going to get fired, you’re fired if in fact you do that. You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that’s committed and I don’t count drunk driving as a felony.”
    -Joe Biden

    THAT is SOOOOOOO wrong...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps Biden needs to see the aftermath of a massacre by a drunk driver...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    It's out of character statements like this that shows me Joe Biden has tacked too far to the Left..

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I wouldn't worry about BUYed'im moving too far left. He has always provided a fair return to those that bought him.

    As far as his vital position on drunk driving, he probably can't relate because he probably doesn't drive.

    But on a related note it is time that someone buy Buyed'im and the rest of the big money candidate/legislators one for the road and send them on their way as we don't need them anymore.

    In fact it is incredible that people bought into the notion we needed them in the first place, much less that people continue to buy into the lie after so much overwhelming evidence that it is bullshit.

    I suppose it is easier to join in with a team and buy into a fantasy than to deal with reality.

    "My shit's better than your shit
    My shit's better than yours.
    My shit's better 'cause
    I believe it
    Truth don't matter no more."
    -Ken-L-Ration jingle parody

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former DOJ official: 'Terrible idea' for Dems to agree to Hunter Biden testimony
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/prior-dems-agree-hunter-biden-testimony-bad-idea

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former DOJ official Ian Prior on Wednesday argued that hearing Hunter Biden’s testimony in the Senate would potentially harm Democrats' impeachment case because though it may not prompt President Trump’s rivals to “talk negatively about it,” it would certainly open a discussion among Joe Biden’s presidential primary competitors.

    “[2020 Democratic presidential candidates are] going to be talking to reporters, too, and using this against Biden, which would then serve to take down the frontrunner to a degree,” Prior told “America’s Newsroom,” weighing in on the debate within impeachment proceedings regarding Hunter being a prospect to testify before the Senate.

    Prior called it a “terrible idea” for Democrats to agree to hear Hunter's testimony.

    Democrats are walking into President Trump's well laid trap.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton tears open wound with her attack on Sanders
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479268-hillary-clinton-tears-open-wound-with-her-attack-on-sanders

    Ya gots to wonder what the HELL Hill is thinking..

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “You’re going to get fired, you’re fired if in fact you do that. You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that’s committed and I don’t count drunk driving as a felony.”
    -Joe Biden

    THAT is SOOOOOOO wrong...

    Actually, first offense DUI’s are almost always a misdemeanor — with the exception being in cases where the DUI driver was involved in a traffic accident. Habitual DUI offenders may also find themselves facing felony charges, eventually, even if they are not involved in traffic accidents.

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MLK Jr’s gun ownership made him 4.5 times more likely than non-gun owners to be killed by a gun.

    Facts to support??

    Even if it were true, so??

    Owning a car makes you 4.5 times likely than non-car owners to die in a car accident..

    It's a bullshit stat that says NOTHING..

    It says NOTHING only if you ignore the fact that MLK, Jr. died a victim of gun violence.

    Also, because of the massive number of vehicles in this country and the fact that over 95% of the total population use vehicles when they need to travel, vehicle ownership doesn’t correlate to an increased likelihood of being killed by a car the same way gun ownership increases the likelihood of being killed by a gun. It’s basic statistics, take an adult education class if you still do not understand why your comparison doesn’t work.

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    By contrast, President Trump is getting things done that help the American people and help America...

    You mean he took five minutes out of golfing to sign off on the trade agreement that the House had passed? Yeah, Trump had soooo much to do with it! Please, he’s so stupid and uninformed that his own staff won’t let him anywhere near the final product until it is time for him to sign it. It’s not like Trump could read it, much less comprehend what it says, even if he wanted to.

    Of course not.. Because Dumbocrats aren't MAKING any sort of criminal case..

    Which is good, seeing how this is an impeachment trial and not a criminal trial in federal court. But don’t fret, Trump will be facing those eventually!

    You keep pushing the lie that the articles of impeachment must cite criminal charges for the offense to be impeachable. History tells us that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    During the Nixon impeachment inquiry there was strenuous argument about the nature of an impeachable offense, whether only criminally-indictable actions qualify for that status or whether the definition is broader. “Bribery” was listed by the Founding Fathers as one such offense that definitely is impeachable, but they were talking about the common law definition of “bribery”, not “bribery” as the federal offense we think of today because it was not criminally codified in this country until the first quarter of the 1800’s. Impeachment could not rely on the actions in question having to be criminally-indictable because we literally did not have the crimes on the books needed to fulfill such a requirement!

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Try this again....

    By contrast, President Trump is getting things done that help the American people and help America...

    You mean he took five minutes out of golfing to sign off on the trade agreement that the House had passed? Yeah, Trump had soooo much to do with it! Please, he’s so stupid and uninformed that his own staff won’t let him anywhere near the final product until it is time for him to sign it. It’s not like Trump could read it, much less comprehend what it says, even if he wanted to.

    Of course not.. Because Dumbocrats aren't MAKING any sort of criminal case..

    Which is good, seeing how this is an impeachment trial and not a criminal trial in federal court. But don’t fret, Trump will be facing those eventually!

    You keep pushing the lie that the articles of impeachment must cite criminal charges for the offense to be impeachable. History tells us that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    During the Nixon impeachment inquiry there was strenuous argument about the nature of an impeachable offense, whether only criminally-indictable actions qualify for that status or whether the definition is broader. “Bribery” was listed by the Founding Fathers as one such offense that definitely is impeachable, but they were talking about the common law definition of “bribery”, not “bribery” as the federal offense we think of today because it was not criminally codified in this country until the first quarter of the 1800’s. Impeachment could not rely on the actions in question having to be criminally-indictable because we literally did not have the crimes on the books needed to fulfill such a requirement!

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As for Executive Privilege, Trump failed to claim that as his reasoning for his order to federal agencies to ignore all requests for information or for witnesses to testify before Congress. Each request has to be addressed on it’s own merits. Trump cannot claim executive privilege for requested documents and communication that were not directly from him. And the Supreme Court made it clear that executive privilege is not all-encompassing, especially during an impeachment inquiry.

    And are Republicans so programmed to use “what-about-when-Obama-did” false equivalencies to defend Trump, that they seriously do not realize that by pointing out that Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for doing exactly what Trump is being accused of doing, they are validating the charges against Trump?!?!

    Seriously!? Granted, Holder actually released thousands of documents requested by Congressional investigators, and only claimed executive privilege for some withheld from disclosure unlike Trump who refused to release any documents. But you go ahead and keep using this argument...it’s such a strong one!

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    President Trump's lawyers are going to TEAR Biden apart!!

    Actually, it's going to be a two-fer for President Trump... Totally make his case *AND* destroy Biden as a viable candidate...

    It's going to be sad to see, though...

    I find this amazingly ironic! Trump lawyers are going to tear Biden apart? Unless they are zombies and plan on literally physically attacking Biden, what in the world would make you think Biden is in trouble by this? I know you are used to just claiming that Biden is guilty of whatever Trump has told you he is guilty of, but come back to this reality for a second and tell me what Joe Biden might know about the charges listed in the Articles of Impeachment?

    Does Trump think that maybe the White House phones are still bugged by Obama, and he and Joe take turns listening in to all of Trump’s phone calls — trying not to let Trump hear their constant giggling???

    The problem with your prediction is that Biden is completely innocent of any wrong doing regarding this case. If anything, this would make that fact all the more obvious to the general public.

Comments for this article are closed.