Shhh, don’t tell Devin Nunes or Dana Rohrabacher!

Jury trial is different than hearings for this. If she goes to trial, she won’t have to wear orange. I’m pretty sure after he was in custody but before his trial started, Manafort wore his prison outfit to at least one pretrial court appearance.

Even worse--his wife works in the White House Counsel’s office with Don McGahn.  My (sad and cynical) guess is that he has this job in part to try to find out what he can about the investigations and proceedings against Manafort et al.

Seriously. It is rare that I boycott products or companies, mainly because I don’t think it makes a huge difference to the company. I only boycott when I know it would bother me every day to see the item in my house. And that is why despite being Sephora Rouge, I have zero Kat Von D makeup.

Ha! How could I forget that??

Seriously. And “full Greenwald” isn’t a good look.

Definitely. With these type of things, they only get widespread buy-in once they’ve caused a huge amount of damage.

I’d mostly seen Greenwald and The Intercept trying to convince people that the Russia investigation was no biggie, nothing to see here. I guess it’s not a surprise that it’s working. Sigh.

I’ll join you at the riot.

I definitely agree re Trump’s preoccupation with self-image. And I don’t think Dems should necessarily “run on” the Russia investigation, but rather I just don’t think they should be scared to discuss it based on poll results.

How on earth do you read “let’s talk about healthcare and everything else” as “don’t talk about domestic issues”?

Yeah, that’s what I said, that we shouldn’t care about domestic issues. /s

It seems weird to be so sure “nothing is going to change” and in the same breath discount the one thing you can do to make sure it changes: vote for those who will not turn a blind eye.

I’m not arguing that Dems not talk about healthcare or any other issue. I’m saying that I think it’s a mistake to use polling to decide whether to also address the Russia investigation and the broader national security implications of that activity.

In response to your original comment, I almost wrote, “I’m assuming this is a good faith comment.” I deleted it because I thought I wasn’t giving you enough credit.

He can’t just refer charges to Congress. There are already multiple prosecutions in the courts that don’t depend on Congress.

Russia’s goal is nothing short of undermining democracy in this country. The bonus to them is that as the U.S. loses its global power and global standing, Russia, by contrast, is more powerful. This is also why Putin seeks to undermine NATO and the EU.

Haberman, in my view, is not a “typical” member of the media. I long ago stopped assuming good faith action from her. But she’s also not the first conflicted or biased member of the media, but again, it’s about a majority, even when it comes to media coverage. There will always be some in the media who are biased…

I guess I am still holding out hope. What I’ve heard from those who lived through Watergate is it was seen by the majority of voters as a political attack—until more came out and it wasn’t. I still maintain hope that a majority of my fellow citizens DO care about being controlled by a hostile foreign power. I know…

But it’s not about “tearing down Trump.” It’s not even clear Trump himself will be indicted. But it is about a massive and ongoing national security risk, including risks to our own sovereignty. The fact that it’s been painted as simply an anti-Trump protest is exactly the problem with the coverage and the way it is…