"not driven by the past"

I think he's mistaken about this. Far too many are driven by their past, particularly mistakes or perceived failures, by themselves or others (such as parents).

The challenge of both planning ahead and learning from the past is well-captured by the old saw about history repeating itself.

Ratings. Pelley's been third.

That's all it ever is. Well, mostly. Sometimes it's typewriter kerning, or a head wound in Iraq or a difficult pregnancy combined with an ultimatum from an alpha male.

But it's almost always about the ratings.

Vox has

thoroughly debunked the credibility of both Mensch and Taylor.

No.

The Dubious "Anthony Weiner's Accuser Was Actually Over 16" Story, And Why I'm Very Skeptical

Friday I wrote about Anthony Weiner's federal plea to transferring obscene material to a person under 16, and offered some comments on how it was unusual and notable.

Since then, a site called "Who What Why" has published a story claiming that the minor in the case was 17, not 15, and that she initiated contact with Weiner, possibly as part of an anti-Clinton conspiracy. The Hill — a more mainstream publication — has picked up the story.

I'm very skeptical, based on my familiarity with federal criminal investigations and procedure.

Who What Why doesn't offer any evidence or documents supporting their claim — only an assertion that they used "sophisticated forensic techniques" to uncover her true identity and verified her age through court records and social media posts — which they don't display.

Who What Why's treatment of the relevant law is incorrect and, frankly, sloppy.

==================

Annnnnnd a lot more.

Not just here...

And yet it remains visible.

With multiple recommends, even.

Does it seem strange that

this post has either a) not been alerted upon, or b) actually survived a jury's vote?

It seems to me to be a very obvious and flagrant violation of DU's "no bashing Democrats" rule. By someone with 15 posts.

Trump will be not impeached unless

Democrats first take back the House of Representatives. A Republican majority in the Senate might still vote in favor of impeaching the president, but nothing happens until a simple majority of the House votes to bring forth articles. I think it's safe to say that Paul Ryan will never allow that vote to happen. So 2019, more specifically November of 2018, is our next opportunity to change that.

In the meantime, there's a 25th Amendment remedy for the GOP that cuts Congress out (Article 4, specifically), and you will see that it's been the topic of discussion for at least the past 90 days (including on Rachel Maddow's show). Whether they employ that sooner than 18 months from now -- or not -- probably depends on the level of public outcry.

Contact your Republican Congress critters.

Old news

Their feud goes back a ways. 2011:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-escalates-feud-with-trump-real-billionaires-dont-host-tv-shows/

2015:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-really-sorry-for-ever-questioning-trumps-nbc-salary/

And from just a couple of days ago:

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/863903824393756672

HuffPo link within has the details.

Update:

From Wallace's grandson:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/opinion/american-fascism-trump.html