Another Day In Gunmerica, Con't

After promising to "do something" about firearm violence in the wake of several deadly mass shootings just a few months ago, the Trump regime is now quietly abandoning any efforts to sign any new legislation as Trump wants to lock down his 2020 base ahead of impeachment and elections.

President Trump has abandoned the idea of releasing proposals to combat gun violence that his White House debated for months following mass shootings in August, according to White House officials and lawmakers, a reversal from the summer when the president insisted he would offer policies to curb firearm deaths.

Trump has been counseled by political advisers, including campaign manager Brad Parscale and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, that gun legislation could splinter his political coalition, which he needs to stick together for his reelection bid, particularly amid an impeachment battle.

The president no longer asks about the issue, and aides from the Domestic Policy Council, once working on a plan with eight to 12 tenets, have moved on to other topics, according to aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private deliberations.

Four White House officials said there haven’t been substantive discussions in weeks. And a person close to the National Rifle Association said discussions between the White House and the group have gone silent in a sign that the powerful gun lobby is no longer concerned the White House will act. Trump was pressed repeatedly by NRA President Wayne LaPierre this summer and early fall to not propose any gun-control measures.

“President Trump quietly moved gun control to the side and let it be replaced by breaking news,” said Dan Eberhart, a major GOP donor who said Trump is better off not advancing proposals at this time. “I suspect that was the plan all along.”

The White House’s position is a marked, if not wholly unexpected, change from when the president vowed he would make a push to pass more restrictive laws after two gunmen killed scores of people in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso in early August, creating national outrage.

Trump repeatedly said he was a supporter of more aggressive background checks, would consider “red flag” laws that allow authorities to temporarily take weapons away from someone deemed a danger, and frequently mentioned the need to focus on mental health as it relates to gun violence.

He made a flurry of calls to lawmakers while crossing the country to visit victims and said he would be willing to go against the desires of the NRA.

In the face of skepticism that he would not push hard for gun restrictions his party has long opposed, Trump insisted he was serious about the issue and would release proposals.

“We’re going to take a look at a lot of different things. And we’ll be reporting back in a fairly short period of time,” he told reporters on Sept. 11. “There are a lot of things under discussion. Some things will never happen, and some things can, really, very much — some very meaningful things can happen.”

Anyone who believed Trump was going to get any legislation passed at all involving firearms is not anybody who you should be listening to.  It was always a scam. It was never going to even get a vote in the Senate.  If you want gun laws, get rid of Trump and McConnell and about 6-8 Republican senators, and then we'll talk.

Oh, and four people were shot and killed at a Halloween party in Orinda, California last night.

Just another day in Gunmerica.

One Versus Six

The impeachment of Donald Trump won't be over anytime soon, and a Senate trial, assuming Mitch McConnell doesn't just toss the whole proceeding in the fireplace, could last well into the 2020 campaign season.  That means six Democratic (well, 5 and Bernie) Senators are going to have to balance a trial that could last months with a primary campaign, and that's very much the realm of uncharted waters.

On its current path, the impeachment case against President Donald Trump is on a collision course with perhaps the most pivotal period in the Democratic primary, threatening to unravel the campaign plans of some of the top 2020 contenders. 

The House is unlikely to vote on impeachment until the end of the year, meaning the Senate trial against Trump figures to begin in January — just weeks before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses. It’s an event that could require the six Democratic presidential prospects to remain in Washington every workday for at least a month.

Depending on when the trial begins, or if it drags on, the trial could affect the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, a day shy of the 21st anniversary of President Clinton’s acquittal after a five-week Senate trial.

There’s no consensus over which Democratic contenders are advantaged by an impeachment trial. Candidates such as Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg won’t be chained to senatorial desks, leaving them to stump unfettered in the two early states. But the six senators — Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren — will occupy the national spotlight as jurors, located at the center of the political universe of impeachment. 

“We’re in uncharted waters. There’s no model for this,” said Joel Benenson, an adviser to Buttigieg and alum of Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. “We’ve never seen an impeachment trial in a presidential election year ever, let alone multiple senators running for president.” 

Aside from being away from the campaign trail during the trial, the senators would face an additional potential burden: They wouldn’t be allowed to speak publicly on the matter in chambers during the weeks-long trial because they’re supposed to sit as silent jurors — a rare restriction for politicians accustomed to using congressional hearings as opportunities to grandstand or create a viral moment. They could comment during breaks outside of the Senate chamber, however. 

The complexities of a Senate trial and its effects on the Democratic primary are only now being discussed in earnest in top Democratic circles. The conversation came into sharp focus after Thursday’s House vote ratified the impeachment process that, if all goes the way House leadership hopes, would end by the holiday season, with Hanukkah starting Dec. 22. That would put a Senate trial as the first and only order of constitutional business to start the new year.

We'll see where things go, but if I'm Mitch McConnell, I want to drag my feet on this for months, causing chaos though at least Super Tuesday and possibly beyond by calling witness after witness in a Senate trial and keeping Democrats tied up and unable to do much of anything for January through March, especially if the plan is to set up Biden for a fall.

Or then again, the trial could be over a day.  I don't know how Mitch is going to play it, and anyone who does is lying.

StupidiNews!

• Part of the Keystone XL pipeline in North Dakota was shut down this week after owner TC Energy discovered a massive leak of nearly 400,000 gallons of oil near Edinburg.
• Donald and Melania Trump are changing their residence to Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida, vacating Trump Tower in Mahnattan as the family's official residence.
• The Pentagon is withholding more than $100 million in security aid for Lebanon after the resignation this week of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.
• Pacific Gas & Electric says mass blackouts in California will end for now as power is being restored to thousands of customers after wildfire threats have lowered this week.
• Fiat Chrysler's merger with European automaker PSA Group to form the world's fourth-largest car manufacturer means Fiat and Chrysler will now welcome brands like Opel, Citroen and Maserati.

Last Call For It's About Suppression, Con't

Democrats, realizing that voter suppression is still robbing millions of Americans of the right to vote (and the fact that most of those voters being disenfranchised happen to be Democratic) are taking to the courts with new efforts to battle Republican efforts in red states.

Democratic groups launched a blitz of voting rights lawsuits in three states this week, in a likely sign of how aggressive the party intends to be in challenging voting restrictions ahead of the 2020 elections.

The three suits target different policies and states, but share a common thread: They all take aim at laws that place restrictions on people who seek to cast ballots in ways other than in person on Election Day. Those policies could play a big role in 2020, when experts expect record-setting voter turnout.

Two of the federal suits filed this week came from state Democratic parties in North Carolina and Texas, as well as the Democratic campaign arms of the House and Senate. In Texas, the groups want to strike down a state law that prohibits temporary polling places during early voting. The law, the groups say, makes it more difficult for college students and rural voters to cast a ballot. The relatively new law follows increased voter turnout both overall and among young people in Texas.

“The gains Texas made in boosting turnout prove that when we remove obstacles to voting, more people cast their ballots ― and that’s a good thing,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement Wednesday. “We won’t stand by while others work to disenfranchise Texans who want to lawfully participate in our democracy and will fight to protect their rights as well as the integrity of the early voting program.”

In North Carolina, the groups are challenging a new state law eliminating early voting on the Saturday before Election Day ― a popular day to cast ballots, especially among young voters and voters of color. (The lawsuit could be mooted after North Carolina lawmakers approved a measure this week to restore early voting that day.)

Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC, also filed a federal suit in Michigan this week challenging the state law that requires election officials to throw out an absentee ballot if they determine the signature on it doesn’t match the one on file. The suit argues that signatures change over time, and that clerks are not handwriting experts and get no guidance on how to review signatures, which could result in them throwing out ballots from valid voters. It’s not clear how many ballots have been rejected because of the policy.

Marc Elias, known as a top Democratic election lawyer, is helping represent the plaintiffs in all three cases. Elias teased on Twitter that more lawsuits are coming, but did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Like I said, it's a start.  It's going to take decades to roll back the damage from the Trump era, and Democrats have to get started now.  It's good to see them doing so.

The Reach To Impeach, Con't

Nancy Pelosi's vote to set the ground rules for impeachment hearings passed easily this morning but along party lines, with two Democrats voting no and independent Justin Amash, run out of the GOP, voting yes in the 232-196 final tally.

At issue is whether Trump abused the power of his office to pressure a foreign leader to investigate his domestic political rivals.

In remarks before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described the impeachment inquiry as a “solemn” and “prayerful” process — “not cause for any glee or comfort.”

At the same time, Pelosi said, “I don’t know why Republicans are afraid of the truth.”

“Every member should support the American people hearing the facts for themselves,” she said in a floor speech. “That is what this vote is about. It’s about the truth. And what is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy.”

Republicans immediately moved the goalposts of "why won't you formalize the impeachment process?!?" to the vicinity of Saturn.

The White House blasted Democrats’ “unhinged obsession with this illegitimate impeachment proceeding” in a statement following the vote.

“The Democrats are choosing every day to waste time on a sham impeachment — a blatantly partisan attempt to destroy the President,” press secretary Stephanie Grisham stated.

Trump, who had no public events on his daily schedule, tweeted: “The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!”

House Republicans echoed the White House in their criticism, describing the inquiry as an effort aimed at removing Trump from office. 

“Democrats are trying to impeach the president because they are scared they can’t defeat him at the ballot box,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on the floor before the vote, calling the opposing party’s approach a “disaster for democracy.”

“To my colleagues on the other side, I say this: Give the people back their power. Let them choose the next leader of the free world. Follow the principles of our Constitution. And do not dilute our democracy by interfering in elections from Washington,” McCarthy said.

The House’s resolution clears the way for nationally televised hearings as Democrats look to make their case to the American people that Trump should be impeached.

Still "illegitimate, illegal, unconstitutional and un-American" even with the formal vote, according to the GOP.  Surprise!  Still, we all know this is going to a Senate trial, and Trump is already setting the stage for jury tampering.

President Donald Trump is rewarding senators who have his back on impeachment — and sending a message to those who don't to get on board.

Trump is tapping his vast fundraising network for a handful of loyal senators facing tough reelection bids in 2020. Each of them has signed onto a Republican-backed resolution condemning the inquiry as “unprecedented and undemocratic.”
Conspicuously absent from the group is Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a politically vulnerable Republican who’s refused to support the resolution and avoided taking a stance on impeachment. With his new push, Trump is exerting leverage over a group he badly needs in his corner with an impeachment trial likely coming soon to the Senate — but that also needs him.

Republican senators on the ballot next year are lagging in fundraising, stoking uncertainty about the GOP’s hold on the chamber, and could use the fundraising might of the president. Trump’s political operation has raked in over $300 million this year.

On Wednesday, the Trump reelection campaign sent a fundraising appeal to its massive email list urging donors to provide a contribution that would be divided between the president and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis. Each of the senators are supporting the anti-impeachment resolution despite being endangered in 2020.

“If we don’t post strong fundraising numbers,” the message warned, “we won't be able to defend the President from this baseless Impeachment WITCH HUNT.”

Next week, Trump will lend a hand to Georgia Sen. David Perdue, a staunch ally who has also spoken out against impeachment. On Nov. 8, the president will host an Atlanta fundraising lunch that will jointly benefit his campaign, the Republican National Committee, and Perdue’s reelection effort. Attendees are being asked to give up to $100,000, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO.

Trump is also set to appear next week at a reception for Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and party leadership.

The offensive comes as Trump presses Republicans to remain united behind him. During a cabinet meeting last week, the president implored Republicans to “get tougher and fight” while lamenting that Democrats “stick together. You never see them break off.”

So the President is fundraising to buy off Republican senators with millions in fundraising cash as long as they support his acquittal before the Senate trial even begins.

Seems about right.

Deportation Nation, Con't

The Trump regime has finally found a loophole in the law governing who is eligible to fill federal cabinet appointments big enough to drive a Ken Cuccinelli nomination through for Secretary of Homeland Security, but the problem is the same one from six months ago: Republican senators hate the guy, and he doesn't even have 50 votes for confirmation.

Cuccinelli, acting head of the relatively obscure U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is one of the president’s top lieutenants because of his aggressive immigration agenda. But he is loathed by McConnell and other Republicans to the point that he probably could not be confirmed for a permanent job.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said he has heard "doubts" about Senate Republicans' appetite to see Cuccinelli elevated and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said "he’d have difficulty being confirmed” to a permanent slot and that putting him in an acting role would be "a problem."

“We need somebody who knows the department really well. Somebody who understands the complexities and the realities of the challenges of balancing all that has," she said.

Trump has been pushed to give the job to Cuccinelli, a newcomer to the administration who has quickly developed direct access to the president, according to people familiar with the situation.

“If Ken was as liked by the White House as he thinks he is, he would’ve been nominated months ago," said a senior administration official. "The problem for Ken is that he is a nonstarter with Mitch McConnell and has a less than zero chance of being confirmed by the Senate.”

But Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the most senior Republican in the Senate, said under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act there's no legal way to put Cuccinelli in the position after acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan leaves his post.

“There’s some opposition to Senate confirmation. I have not heard anything about some go-around. But it’s my understanding that the existing law would not permit him to” lead the organization, Grassley said in an interview. “I don’t know how you get around that. I don’t think it’s possible because of what the law says, not because of anything else.”

The administration is considering bypassing a federal law governing agency succession that makes Cuccinelli ineligible for acting secretary by naming someone to be assistant secretary of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, which was recently vacated, and then elevating that person to be the acting secretary of Homeland Security, according to two people familiar with the situation. The loophole comes from language from a bipartisan bill that was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act in fiscal year 2017, according to a person familiar with the situation. The New York Times first reported the effort to appoint Cuccinelli.

These guys really, really want Cuccinelli atop DNS, so he can start the mass deportations during an election year, something to get Trump's base all fired up surely.  We're going to see very soon who's in charge of the Senate GOP, Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump.

Trump loses this fight unless he's willing to slag McConnell's re-election chances.  He may just do it.  We'll see.

StupidiNews!

• House Democrats advanced their impeachment inquiry resolution out of the Rules Committee Wednesday for a schedule vote today, more than a dozen Republican amendments were defeated.
• Some 300,000 Georgia voters are expected to be purged ahead of the state's 2020 primaries as Republicans continue to target black and Latino voters across the country.
• The Federal reserve cut interest rates for the third time in 2019 as the US economy continues to slow, third-quarter GDP came in at just 1.9% growth.
• A second Japanese cabinet member has resigned from PM Shinzo Abe's government this week as allegations of illegal campaign staff payments swirled around Justice Minister Katsuyuki Kawai.
• Twitter says it will block all campaign ads starting in November as the social media platform deals with an increasing number of bots and fake accounts used to manipulate voters with propaganda.

Last Call For Ukraine In The Membrane, Con't

So yeah, yesterday we learned that the White House lied about the Ukraine transcript and intentionally left out the part where Trump incriminated himself, because it's 1974 and Nixon erased the tapes again.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.

Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made.

Colonel Vindman did not testify to a motive behind the White House editing process. But his testimony is likely to drive investigators to ask further questions about how officials handled the call, including changes to the transcript and the decision to put it into the White House’s most classified computer system — and whether those moves were meant to conceal the conversation’s most controversial aspects.

The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry. There are plenty of other examples of Mr. Trump referring to Ukraine-related conspiracy theories and asking for investigations of the Biden family. But Colonel Vindman’s account offered a hint to solving a mystery surrounding the conversation: what Mr. Trump’s aides left out of the transcript in places where ellipses indicated dropped words.

We knew about the quid pro quo before.  We knew about the plot to get Zelensky to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden to help Donald Trump's 2020 chances.  What we didn't have before was the indication of what was missing in the call summary the White House put out saying the call was "perfect" and normal.

The idiots covered it up and here's a NSC Ukraine expert testifying under oath that yes, the White House omitted the incriminating parts on purpose.

The Wall Street Journal is backing up the NY Times story on this as well.  The transcript that the Republicans have been yelling about for a month now is bogus.  Greg Sargent explains what this means:

“This doesn’t change our understanding of the underlying betrayal,” Ned Price, a former senior director at the National Security Council, told me. “But it makes it much harder for Trump to argue that this was about ‘corruption.’ The omitted edits underscore the fact that Trump was singularly focused on the Bidens.”

Note that Trump’s claim that the “transcript” totally exonerates him is central to his demand that Republicans defend him on the substance. Trump wants Republicans to forcefully argue that he did nothing wrong by pointing to that transcript, as he is doing.

But not only do they know that the conduct it revealed was indefensible; and not only is the quid pro quo for military aid closer to getting nailed down; it’s now even harder to point to the “transcript,” because it has been overshadowed by the omissions from it. What’s more, these omissions will remind Republicans that they are flying blind about how bad this could get, making them still more skittish.

It's getting worse for the GOP here and they know it.

It's Nobody's Business But The Turks, Con't

Meanwhile, the US House has overwhelmingly voted to recognize the Armenian genocide by Turkey 100 years ago, a point of historical contention that the US has threatened to do for years against Ankara but didn't have the votes for until Erdogan started wiping out Syrian Kurdish allies this month.  The resolution is part of a new US sanctions bill against Turkey and in response, Turkey has called US Ambassador David Satterfield on the carpet and is warning the US that Ankara's NATO alliance is now definitely in jeopardy.

Turkey has summoned the U.S. ambassador after lawmakers in Washington voted to recognize Ottoman-era mass killings of Armenians as a genocide and called for sanctions against Ankara.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution recognizing the genocide — which Ankara denies — and passed a bill aiming to impose fresh sanctions on Turkey over its military operation against Syrian Kurdish forces.

In response, the Turkish government on Wednesday morning summoned David Satterfield, the U.S. representative in Ankara, the state news agency Anadolu reported.

The Turkish foreign ministry rejected the genocide recognition as "meaningless" and "devoid of any historical or legal basis" in a statement issued late Tuesday, suggesting that lawmakers had approved the resolution to "take vengeance" against Turkey over its incursion into Syria.

"Undoubtedly, this resolution will negatively affect the image of the U.S. before the public opinion of Turkey as it also brings the dignity of the U.S. House of Representatives into disrepute," the statement added.

Considering the bill passed 403 to 16, Turkey's probably right to be concerned.  Where the bill goes in the Senate nobody knows, the Senate hasn't tipped their hand yet, but I would think it would pass.

We'll see.

It's All About Revenge Now, Con't

As I mentioned over the weekend, California Democratic Rep. Katie Hill was run out of town after conservative websites leaked her having an affair with a staffer, including some very explicit pictures.  The goal of this was not just to get Hill, one of the freshmen Dems who devastated the GOP last year, out of office in less than a year, but to rally California's GOP and clear the path for convicted Trump regime felon George Papadopoulos to run.

Convicted former Donald Trump advisor George Papadopoulos has filed paperwork to run for Congress in California as a Republican.

Papadopoulos is running for the state’s 25th congressional district, which will be an open seat following the announcement by Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) that she will not run for re-election after being targeted with revenge porn.

In October of 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to make false statements to the FBI. He served twelve days in a federal prison.

Trump has said his former advisor was just a “coffee boy.”

State Assemblywoman Christy Smith, who is a Democrat running for the seat, blasted Papadopoulos.

“If he pled guilty to lying to the FBI – how do we know he’ll tell us the truth? We deserve someone from our community serving as our voice – not Trump’s wannabe political hack,” Smith said.

Again, Hill was forced out of office by the political equivalent of revenge porn by her estranged husband.

Rep. Katie Hill, D-California, announced her resignation Sunday evening, following the publication of a nude image of Hill by conservative website RedState and an announcement Wednesday that the House Committee on Ethics announced it was opening an investigation into allegations that she engaged in an improper relationship with a House staffer in possible violation of House rules. Hill denied that relationship alleged by the conservative blog, and indicated that the photos -- which may amount to revenge porn, which is illegal in California -- were published without her consent as part of an abusive campaign being waged against Hill by her soon-to-be ex-husband. In her resignation letter, Hill made clear that she will focus on fighting against revenge porn when she leaves office. She has called what happened to her "electronic assault." CNN has reached out to Hill's husband for comment but has not heard back. Hill has given no evidence connecting her husband to the circulation of the photo. 

Much of the conversation surrounding Hill over the past week has focused on allegations made by Hill against her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep. Hill, one of the first members of Congress who identifies as bisexual, has admitted to having had a consensual relationship with a woman who worked on her congressional campaign, which some have characterized as a "throuple" involving the 32-year-old congresswoman, her estranged husband and the 26-year-old campaign staffer. In a letter to supporters Wednesday, Hill acknowledged the relationship, saying that it happened "during the final tumultuous years of (an) abusive marriage" and characterized the relationship, while consensual, as "inappropriate." Heslep has not responded to requests for comment from multiple media outlets. 

No one could argue that Hill's actions with the campaign staffer demonstrated good judgment, were professional, or even ethical. Having an affair with a subordinate, regardless of where that person works, is wrong. But what has been done to her over the past week -- the nonconsensual release of nude images of herself -- is against the law in many places. As of October 2019, 46 states, along with the District of Columbia and Guam, have enacted laws against revenge porn.

This is only the beginning, I suspect.

StupidiNews!

• Wildfire conditions in Sountern California are so dire that the National Weather Service has issued its first extreme red flag warning for the area this week.
• As widely expected, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction stopping the release of Mueller probe grand jury materials to House Democrats pending Justice Department appeal.
• Protesters took to the streets again on Tuesday in Chile as President Sebastian Pinera's government has arrested more than 7,000 in the streets of Santiago.
• The Trump regime wants new NAFTA II language to include the White House's ability to tell automakers in all three North American countries where cars and trucks will be made.
• ARPANET, the early US government precursor to the internet, was born 50 years ago this week as an experiment to allow military communication that could survive a nuclear war.

Last Call For The Blue Wave Rises, Con't

Republicans are making drowning noises at Team WIN THE MORNING 2.0 as they come to terms with the fact that anyone not named Trump is going to be destroyed by him over the next 12 months.

A growing number of Republicans are privately warning of increasing fears of a total wipeout in 2020: House, Senate, and White House.

Why it matters: All of this is unfolding while the economy still looks strong, and before public impeachment proceedings have officially begun.

House Republicans in swing districts are retiring at a very fast pace, especially in the suburbs of Texas and elsewhere. (Republicans talk grimly of the "Texodus.") Rep. Greg Walden — the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the only Republican in Oregon's congressional delegation — yesterday shocked the party by becoming the 19th GOP House member to not seek re-election. 

The Republican Senate majority, once considered relatively safe, suddenly looks in serious jeopardy. Democrats are raising more money, and polling better, than Republican incumbents in battleground after battleground. 

President Trump trails every major Democratic candidate nationally and in swing states — and his favorable ratings remain well under 50%.

The biggest recent change is Republicans' increasingly precarious hold on the Senate.
National Journal's Josh Kraushaar writes in his "Against the Grain" column that "the pathway for a narrow Democratic takeover of the upper chamber is looking clearer than ever": "If Trump doesn’t win a second term, Democrats only need to net three seats to win back the majority."

Scott Reed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce senior political strategist, tells me that third-quarter fundraising reports showing three Republican senators being out-raised by Democratic challengers (in Arizona, Iowa and Maine) "are a three-alarm fire."

Those three pickups could very well be Arizona, NC, and Maine.  Colorado's Cory Gardner losing would make four and be countered by Doug Jones losing to Jeff Sessions in Alabama, who is looking to get his old seat back.  But the way things are going?  Sessions might not get through the primary.

Joni Ernst is in trouble in Iowa, and Georgia has two Senate elections this year with a special election and a regular one.  And then there's Mitch.

Gary Peters is vulnerable in Michigan, but in a wave year like I foresee in 2020, it's going to be a lot of fun to watch Dems get the Senate back.  Pick up 4 seats? Five?  Six is not out of the question.

Could be 2008 all over again.

All Your Base, Con't

Donald Trump's base hasn't wavered an inch in the last two months, and his hard-core supporters continue to keep his approval rating at about 40%, which is about where the number of Americans who will support Trump through Armageddon itself remains unchanged.

Even as support for his impeachment grows, President Donald Trump continues to be backed by a seemingly unshakable core of supporters who deny he has done anything wrong and agree that he is the target of a political "lynching," a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds.

Americans are split in the survey about whether Trump should be convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial and removed from office: 46% in favor and 47% against. Having close to half of registered voters support his eviction from the White House is politically perilous territory for any president, of course.

Despite damaging new testimony, however, 30% to 40% of those surveyed remain solidly on Trump’s side. That is a significant asset for the president as the House of Representatives prepares to vote Thursday to affirm the formal impeachment investigation.

“Let’s look at the economy, wages, unemployment, foreign affairs, tariffs and other things like that,” said Steven Kay, 67, of Riverside County, California, a retiree and a Republican who was among those surveyed. “His rhetoric might be a little much, but he is making good policy.” 

William Skelskey, 84, a Republican and retired real-estate agent from Mission Viejo, California, blamed Democrats' "negativity" for Trump's troubles and called him "one of the top three presidents since Washington and Reagan."

The president’s solid core of supporters don’t comprise a majority of the electorate, but they do provide a political foundation that energizes him – witness his speeches that stretch an hour and longer at raucous rallies – and helps limit defections from other GOP officials.

In the poll, nearly four in 10 say his phone call pressuring the Ukrainian president to meddle in U.S. politics is itself an impeachable offense. But another 31% say there was nothing wrong with the conversation, echoing Trump’s insistence that it was "perfect." Thirty-seven percent say the House should stop investigating the president and his administration entirely.

“It seems like the inquiry is a tremendous waste of time and money,” said George Roma, 55, a small business owner from central Florida and a Republican. “I’m baffled why they continue to do this for three years.”

They will never care about his criminality, they are overwhelmingly white Boomers and Silent Generation , and they see Trump as the last bastion of America's 400-year white supremacy streak.  If he goes down, America might actually progress towards equality again.

And yet, Trump has shown that with enough third-party nonsense, Russian help, and last minute surprises, he can win a second term with 47% of the vote.

Ukraine In The Membrane, Con't

Depositions of executive agency personnel involved in the Trump Ukraine scandal continue this week, and up today is National Security Council Ukraine expert, Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, who will offer the first testimony of someone actually on the now fateful July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine’s president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a “sense of duty,” he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times.

He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.

“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.

The colonel, a Ukrainian-American immigrant who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb and whose statement is full of references to duty and patriotism, could be a more difficult witness to dismiss than his civilian counterparts.

“I am a patriot,” Colonel Vindman plans to tell the investigators, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.”

He was to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees, in defiance of a White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.

The colonel, who is represented by Michael Volkov, a former federal prosecutor, declined to comment for this article.

In his testimony, Colonel Vindman plans to say that he is not the whistle-blower who initially reported Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. But he will provide an account that corroborates and fleshes out crucial elements in that complaint, which prompted Democrats to open their impeachment investigation.

Vindman essentially turning states' evidence here on Trump means two things: one, White House employees are now openly defying Trump, and two, as I said yesterday John Bolton's mustache's eventual testimony can't be far behind.  If one of his former NSC experts is talking to House Democrats, and Bolton remains in talks for his own deposition, I suspect the White House is sweating bullets right now.

Still, today's testimony could be the most damaging yet.  Vindman was on the call directly.  His prepared statement says he reported the concerns about the call to his superiors twice.  It's going to be bad.

Stay tuned.

StupidiNews!

• Former North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan has passed at age 66, Hagan died in her home in Greensboro Monday after battling viral encephalitis for three years. 
• The European Union has agreed to the UK Parliament letter delaying Brexit proceedings until January 31 as British PM Boris Johnson's move to call for snap elections failed a third time.
• Amazon is considering suing the Trump regime over losing a $10 billion Pentagon contract to rival Microsoft, the company is considering legal action as soon as next week.
• Hong Kong city administrator Carrie Lam is attacking "speculative" media reports that China will replace her for failure to deal with months of protests.
• A New York Times investigation finds tales of Halloween treats being spiked or laced with everything from pot to razor blades is one of America's most enduring urban legends.