He related an impactful personal experience of the effects of abuse of power.

Be heartened, as I ran out of pocket-sized copies of The Constitution at a seniors gathering. I didn't have to talk politics, I talked civic responsibility.

"We can disagree politically, but let's disagree about politics, Constitutionally."

I will bring more than three next week, as clearly, I could have handed out dozens.

From Judge Ostrager’s ruling mentioned in the article:

The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses, he added.

What happened to the witnesses? Why didn’t they testify?

I can hardly believe the state’s AG would bring a case without investor witnesses. And this was ruling was with prejudice? Can’t bring the same case again?!

Great OP that I’m compelled to share.

A complete set of well-grounded responses to the republicons' false arguments.

Will share this around.

JHB, I like hearing your voice. I’m journaling to return to this over the next few days. And I find it extra thought-provoking next to BuffaloJackalope’s comment of republicans as victims of putin’s propaganda.



(Am looking for a way to give everyday conservatives who are cooling to tRump an out for having supported him. This as Thanksgiving approaches, fraught with questions of whether this uncle or cousin will speak to me or even make eye contact. It’s not those two that I care to sway in any way, but is an indicator of how bad things have become in my extended purple family.)

She opens the show with a rundown of headlines across numerous papers. Was good to hear her recount Fiona Hill and David Holmes' testimonies from today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-statement-before-the-house-intelligence-committee-from-fiona-hill-former-white-house-russia-expert/1f09eb68-7869-47be-9f5a-95b86968465a/