Don't buy the hype. The Democrats did more than fine today

They got Lewandowski to admit on the record that he told Mueller everything Mueller says he told him. In other words, Mueller didn't make any of that ish up.

And then they got him to admit that Donald Trump asked him, a private citizen, to communicate to the attorney general that he should unrefuse himself from an investigation of the president and lie to the American public about it.

All the other stuff people are obsessing about - including the Republicans and Lewandowski songs and dances - is just noise.

The Democrats did a good job today.

Who thought that when impeachment hearings started, suddenly witnesses would start cooperating?

A question for Biden supporters

Did any of you support Bernie Sanders in 2016? If so, what caused you to switch this time around?

If Biden is the only candidate who can truly save us from Trump, wouldn't Obama know that better

than anyone? And if he knows that, why hasn't he endorsed Biden by now?

Yes, I know, that's not how it's usually done. That traditionally, in normal times, former presidents don't endorse candidates in the primary.

But these aren't normal times. Aren't we often told that these times call for extraordinary measures and we can't play it safe and do things the old way? If that's the case and if Obama believes that Biden is, hands down, the best hope to beat Trump, rescue the nation and get us on the right track, shouldn't he step up and tell us that?

Or could it be that, even if President Obama thinks that Biden would make an awesome president, he doesn't necessarily believe he's the only Democratic candidate who would make a great president and that he'd also be happy with one the other candidates getting the nomination and taking on Trump? Could it be that Obama actually believes that one of the other candidates would be a better choice than Biden but he would never, ever betray his friend by saying that out loud?

Don't be distracted by the media's harping on DOJ's claim that the Dems disagree about "impeachment"

That argument is in their pleading but it's actually an alternative argument and the press has virtually ignored the most important and troubling part of the pleading.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress has no right to get the grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) because, according to them, an impeachment in the House is not a "judiciary proceeding" and isn't even "preliminary" to a judicial proceeding. They argue that only the Senate trial qualifies.

This is a serious and very troubling argument. They're asking the court to throw out decades of established precedent and find that the House can NEVER can obtain grand jury materials to use in an impeachment investigation. Only the Senate is entitled to such material. Of course, the Senate doesn't gather evidence or conduct investigations, so arguing that the Senate is the only congressional body entitled to access such materials means that grand jury materials could ever be used in the investigatory portion of the impeachment process.

The claim about the Democrats' messaging is secondary and alternative to the access argument. The lawyers claim that, even if it is decided that an impeachment inquiry falls under the judicial proceeding exception, the House isn't really conducting an impeachment inquiry because different Members have said different things in the press. Of course, what various Member say in interviews is irrelevant to whether the House is engaging in a certain activity. And in this case, the Judiciary Committee Chair has the power and authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry without a House resolution - and certainly without getting permission from each individual House Member all of whom are free to think and say whatever they want but their opinion has no bearing on whether the Judiciary Committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry.

I point this out because the press are so eager to continue pushing a certain narrative ("Democrats in disarray!&quot that they are failing to report on the important aspect of this story - that Trump is trying to not only overturn established precedence but make it virtually impossible for grand jury materials to be used in any impeachment investigations of any officer in the future.

Don't get distracted by the "are they or aren't they doing an impeachment inquiry?" clickbait journalism. There's are lot more serious things happening in this case and story that the press just isn't bothering to cover.

DOJ's pleading claims that impeachment isn't a "judiciary proceedings" under Rule 6(e)

So anyone trying to argue that DOJ's other claims - that the House isn't REALLY conducting an impeachment inquiry because the full House hasn't voted on it and the Speaker hasn't said it explicitly - have any validity needs to realize they're believing and endorsing bogus, almost laughable arguments being pushed by Trump's lawyers in an effort to stave off impeachment and accountability.

It's IMPEACHMENT, not "Simon Says"

Breaking: Hillary found her emails!

Why does the press keep treating the Democrats' lack of strength in rural areas as a major problem

while not treating Republicans' failure to win urban areas as if it's no big deal, not even worth mentioning?

Never mind. I think I know the answer.

Don't believe the lies. An official impeachment inquiry does NOT need advance authorization

by the full House. The lack of a House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry does not render said inquiry any less official or valid then one initiated pursuant to such a vote

An official impeachment inquiry can originate in the Judiciary Committee upon the unilateral act of the chair and does not require approval by the full House in order to be a valid inquiry or to provide the legal and proper basis for an eventual impeachment.

Not only do the House rules not require authorization by the full body, several impeachment proceedings have been initiated by the Judiciary Committee chair without such authorization in the past.