Needed 1885
Biden 0
Booker 0
Buttigieg 0
Castro 0
Harris 0
Klobuchar 0
Sanders 0
Warren 0
Yang 0
Political Wire logo Kennedy Doubles Down on Ukraine Interference
Official Who Wanted to Use Nukes Works on Arms Control
Trump Plays Big Role In British Election
Trump’s Intervention In SEALs Case Tests Pentagon
Impeachment Loomed Over Past Presidents
Top Republican Wants Adam Schiff to Testify
TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Sunday Mailbag

Sunday Mailbag

A very broad variety of messages in the mailbag (well, the inbox) this week.

Observations on Impeachment

V & Z: Assuming the House goes ahead and impeaches Donald Trump, there is a bit of irony to point out. In the last presidential impeachment, that of Bill Clinton, one of the House managers was a California congressman named James Rogan. A couple years later, Rogan lost his re-election bid to one...Adam Schiff. R.H.D., Webster, NY

Note: We did not pick up on that. What goes around comes around.

V & Z: Seems the Trumpists are controlling language in their own favor. During the Mueller investigation, there was a lot of talk about "collusion," which conveniently had no definition in the context being looked at. So when the report found no conspiracy, we got all the noise about "no collusion," as if that meant something. Meanwhile, of course, the report showed PLENTY of collusion in the commercial law sense, but that didn't apply and nobody really jumped on it.

Now, we have all this "quid pro quo." And, of course, any serious deal has to have a quid pro quo. The term is wimpy and it disguises the point—that Trump demanded a payment to himself personally (or to his 2020 presidential campaign) in return for doing his job as head of government. We need better words.

I've been playing with "baksheesh," which has the right definition, but somehow doesn't feel right. Another possibility is "grease," but it feels obsolete. You're good at this stuff, so please think about it. But letting Trumpist language stand is a bad idea. S.A.J., Elberon, NJ

V & Z: NDAs are not enforceable against subpoenas. "I signed an NDA, so I can't testify," is never a valid defense. Indeed, most (legitimate) NDAs expressly carve out subpoenas and court orders, though they often have notice requirements so that the counterparty can move for a protective order. And while anyone can sue anyone for anything, a testifying witness sued by Trump would almost certainly win an immediate motion to dismiss.

What I think you left out is the possibility that a witness honestly feels he is between a rock and a hard place. He has a subpoena that, if he fails to obey it, could and should result in his imprisonment for civil contempt (and possibly criminal contempt if we ever get an Attorney General who enforces the law). On the other hand, as a member of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to direct his actions within the scope of his duties. That's a real conflict, and when I read about Kupperman's suit, my first reaction was, "It's about time someone did that to get a resolution of this issue."

Finally, a nitpick: Roger Stone was not convicted of contempt of Congress; he was convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements to Congress, and witness tampering. R.M., Brooklyn, NY

Note: Our wording on Stone was clumsy. We knew what he was specifically convicted of, our intention was to communicate that his case is a clear and recent reminder that Congress' status as a tribunal is not to be taken lightly.

V & Z: Had we insisted on impeachment the day of inauguration, then yeah, that would be "overturning the election."

But overturning the election now would require reversing 3 years of actions, some of them essentially irreversible. Two supreme court justices, who knows (do you?) how many federal lifetime judges, thousands of (essentially) tortured would-be immigrants and refugees, welfare for the rich, decimated health plans, environmentally disastrous regulation eliminations. That's probably why it's best not to focus on the Russia investigation, at least the actions we know about (what have he and Putin talked about, hmmmm?), but on actions that were taken during his actual presidency. D.S., Palo Alto, CA

You Can't Spell "Contemporary Lucifer" Without T-R-U-M-P

V & Z: A couple of comments on your piece regarding Rick Perry's calling Trump the "chosen one," with the pondering whether Trump is the Antichrist. I might also note Zechariah 11:16: "For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs." This is likely to be referring to the same guy. Relevant to Trump? Seems plausible; you decide.

That said, I have tended to believe that Trump is not the Antichrist because he is not cunning enough or popular enough. (And oh, how I wish he would see that statement!) The real Antichrist will appeal to liberals as much as conservatives. Unity at last! Well, until the real Christ returns anyway. M.Y., Windcrest, TX

V & Z: This is a link to an article published in the Texas Observer about Rick Perry's religious affiliation. This immediately came to mind when reading that Perry referenced Trump as "the chosen one." Having read this article, I find referencing Trump as "the chosen one" to be a bit chilling as there are likely to be a number of like-minded people who believe as Perry states. L.G., Austin, TX

V & Z: C'mon guys! All this chapter and verse from Revelation and you're just going to ignore 666 Fifth Avenue? Nostradamus would be disappointed. Clearly Kushner is the beast! M.H., Seattle, WA

After All, Race Is a Social Construct

V & Z: I just wanted to do a little follow-up on my question about racial definitions.

First, another historical anecdote: the Paper Bag Test. The applicant's skin was measured next to a brown paper bag (presumably from a Schwegmann's store in New Orleans). Being lighter than the bag allowed some quasi-legal rights such as admission to nightclubs, a fraternity/sorority, churches, and even universities.

I have a small confession to make and that is that my query was a leading question and, like a good lawyer (though I'm not a lawyer, just a country engineer), I knew the answer before I asked it. I completely and totally agree with your answer that determining what defines 'black' or 'white' or 'Asian' etc. is simply impossible.

That answer then raises the question: How are racially-based laws/rules/regulations/executive orders to be written when the terms cannot be properly defined?

But that's a discussion for another day. F.L., Denton, TX

Note: We have no objections to questions that the asker knows the answer to, but thinks would be useful to a broader audience.

V & Z: I thought I would add a small factoid about Native American status. I know someone well who is a recognized member of the Chippewa (Ojibwe) Nation. However, this person has no apparent genetic heritage as a Native. This is possible because, as I understand it, legal status as Native is based on what the Native parent testifies to. In my friend's case, the Native father accepted the child as his own when he almost certainly knew the biological father was someone else. The mother was definitely not Native (biologically or legally). E.M., Milwaukee, WI

When You Produce a Lot of Content on a Daily Basis, Sometimes You Step in It

V & Z: You wrote this about Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-South Bend): "As to being discriminated against, it is certainly true, but he had the option of staying in the closet or coming out at a moment convenient for him. Black people don't have those options."

People offer statements like this to justify homophobia. Many people do not like that there is an LGBT community and would like LGBT people to stay in the closet. The closet is not a refuge or a convenience. People in the closet hide their true selves not for personal enrichment but because they fear losing their job or family or face ridicule, bullying, or violence. People are backed into the closet because they are told LGBT people are unnatural, perverted, or abominations, and they will not be allowed to participate in society if they are open about who they are. The Pride movement is largely about combating the shame that LGBT people are made to feel—that is the root of many mental health issues and drives some young (and middle-aged and older) people to suicide. Having a closet in which you can be locked is not an asset or a benefit. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy might have seemed like a reasonable compromise, but at its heart was homophobic by forcing LGBT people into the closet because they might make "normal" people feel uncomfortable or disgusted. Pete Buttigieg has been criticized for not coming out earlier in life, and waiting until it was more "convenient." Considering a person's being in the closet to be a weakness in character is tantamount to blaming a victim of crime for not being more careful. The villain is the criminal, not the victim. What should be criticized are the societal "norms," policies, and lack of protections that drive people into the closet. Being in the closet is a choice, but it is not a choice that anyone should have to make. Closets have to be shared with demons, fear, and pain.

Pete Buttigieg should be called out for his racist comments and policies. However, he should also be given the opportunity to respond, learn, and grow. Calling him a "lying MF" is counterproductive and combative. Using homophobic arguments against him (see above) is also counterproductive. African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx people, and LGBT people all face different struggles. The goal is not to win a contest to determine whose struggles are worst. The goal is to understand these varied struggles and find ways to deal with them. Winning the larger battle against discrimination and bias requires us to recognize our own biases and prejudices and understand and control them. Bigots in the majority will be freer to practice bigotry if the different groups facing discrimination and bigotry are distracted by smaller, unnecessary battles against each other. S.N., San Francisco, CA

V & Z: I found the piece you wrote today about Buttigieg to be largely informative and you made fair points, until you repeated a horrid piece of homophobia perpetuated largely by the black community: That those of us who are gay have the option of staying in the closet or not coming out. It is a myth largely based on simplistic thinking that somehow skin color is noticeable but gender non-conformity and sexual attraction are "options". For some of us, yes, we can pass. It's damned hard work, though, and a slipped comment or stray look can ruin that in a heartbeat. For others there is absolutely no way to cover up being gay. I spent a couple decades partnered with someone most would consider effeminate. Both in mannerisms and speech it was perfectly clear one second after meeting him that he is gay. I'd also be very happy to share my experiences being persecuted versus those of most black people. Denied a job? Check. Called ugly names? Check. Refused service? Check. Gotten my grade lowered for standing up to a homophobic professor? Afraid of walking to my car? Afraid to call a cop? If we want to play that game, fine, I'll keep up. Not that complaining about who has it worse serves any purpose, but I'll be damned if I yield to some homophobic authors, like the one you quote, that I can't compare my life experiences to theirs.

I would suggest that when talking about Pete Buttigieg's failure to make inroads in the black community, you do what you do best, analysis based on statistics. The most interesting would be how much homophobia exists in the black community compared to others. Once you normalize the data for that factor, we can see if Pete is actually making progress or not. P.B., Rochester, NY

Note: Our purpose there was to quickly summarize Buttigieg's argument, and the counterargument often made by black folks (and, sometimes, others of color). It was not our intention to take a side, though our verbiage did seem to suggest that we came down in favor of the "gay people could choose to hide their orientation if they so wished" point of view. Our apologies for that.

Notes on a Scandal

V & Z: While I hesitate to venture into the area of (Z)'s professional expertise, I take issue with your un-nuanced characterization of Stephen A. Douglas as advocating "the pro-slavery position." Douglas, in his efforts to avert civil war, was excoriated by both sides. He was a key architect of the Compromise of 1850 which, among other provisions, banned the slave trade in the District of Columbia and admitted California as a free state (even though much of that state was south of the Missouri Compromise line). In 1858, in debating Abraham Lincoln, he articulated the Freeport Doctrine to enable the exclusion of slavery from the territories despite the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott. As a result, when the Democratic Party nominated Douglas for President in 1860, the pro-slavery southern delegations bolted, and nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge. Douglas lost all of the slave states except Missouri. Douglas was more pro-slavery than Lincoln, but then, until the Civil War, Lincoln was more pro-slavery than the abolitionists. J.L., Jersey City, NJ

Note: Writing those items, we don't want to get too far into the weeds, and we don't have footnotes available, so sometimes a bit of nuance goes by the wayside. It's true that Douglas was not as pro-slavery as Andrew Butler or Preston Brooks or other white Southerners. However, when Sumner made his speech in 1856, the critical dividing line on the issue was "should slavery be allowed to expand into the territories?" Douglas, President Franklin Pierce, soon-to-be President James Buchanan, and white Southerners were all on the same side, when it came to answering that question with a "yes."

V & Z: Just read your piece on Martin Van Buren, and was disappointed that you didn't mention as a final note that he is the origin of the most used word in the world today: OK. Old Kinderhook deserves that recognition! D.H., Berkeley, CA

Note: (Z), who is writing the scandals pieces, is always leery of getting into word and phrase etymologies, because there usually seems to be about six competing claims about origins. Some credit Van Buren, others think it came from the Choctaw word "okeh," and still others think it comes from a 175-year-old work of satire that made light of the phrase "oll korrect!" Who knows which it is? Maybe they're oll korrect.

V & Z: Van Buren's post-Presidential anti-slavery activity certainly is redeeming. D.R., Ewing, NJ

Note: Fair point. And as the first and only presidential nominee of the Free Soil Party, which evolved into the Republican Party, he also has a case as the godfather of the GOP.

V & Z: I patronize Santander ATMs specifically so that I can avoid getting twenty-dollar bills, that's how much I have come to despise Andy Jackson. But that was a wonderful piece about the Petticoat Affair, the highlights of which for me were the bit about Van Buren being under-appreciated (along with Benjamin Harrison and Warren G. Harding, in my opinion) and Jackson's own, faulty but delightful comment about Calhoun. D.A., Brooklyn, NY

V & Z: I found your Andrew Jackson deathbed (almost) quote interesting:

I can tell you; posterity will condemn me more because I was persuaded not to hang John C. Calhoun as a traitor than for any other act in my life.

I know you quoted it for his state of mind, not his prescience, but, at least as of 174 years later: Nope. Not even close. He is condemned harshly for a number of things, mostly related to African and Native Americans, and hardly anyone knows or cares about this one. J.L., Chicago, IL

Note: As Hegel observed, "History is a court of judgment."

V & Z: I love that you're making space for some of the biggest political stinkpots in our past! It's so easy for political wonks like us, your readers, to get so deep into the weeds of a current administration or scandal that we lose perspective of how our country survived past acts of corrupt politicians.

While I believe that this administration will be legendary in terms of its corruption and scandal (an unequivocal 5 covfefes!), your window into our past encourages me that we still have the ability to recover and move forward.

Political winds occasionally blow over garbage dumps and sewers before entering our homes, but in due time, they shift to pass over oceans and through pine forests to help us breathe easier once again. S.B., New Castle, DE

The S.S. Trump Is Rudderless

V & Z: Thank you for your coverage of Richard Spencer's parting shot op-ed. Even though I read obsessively about politics and policy, I had not fully grasped the details of this malodorous situation.

The story plainly shows that Trump has crossed, or is willing to cross, just about the last boundary of executive lawlessness.

Conservatives like to complain about the administrative state, arguing that "unelected bureaucrats" should not make policy. But government agencies do not get to do whatever they want. The procedural strictures and substantive constraints of administrative law protect Americans from the arbitrary exercise of statutory authority by executive agencies.

Or at least they used to. The Trump Administration, in its eagerness to follow the whims of its leader on whatever catches his attention, has violated or ignored administrative law time after time. This is why the Administration keeps losing in court. Conservatives, by insisting that agencies should mechanically implement the President's will, have actually undermined the protections they claim to care so much about. (In fairness, all recent Presidents have tried to centralize and politicize administrative decision-making. Moderates and progressives have been apologists for this as well—ahem, Elena Kagan).

When I teach my administrative law students about the president's role in agency decision making, I point out that even though the president is head of the executive branch, there are situations in which courts will not accept "because the president says so" as a justification for agency action. The paradigmatic example is presidential interference with formal agency adjudications. If, say, an EPA administrative law judge is deciding whether a major utility should be penalized for violating the Clean Air Act, the President may not tell the ALJ which way the case must be decided. The due process clause, fortunately, forbids that.

But that's exactly what Trump did in Chief Gallagher's case. Now, of course, military justice is different, for many reasons, including the president's constitutional role as commander-in-chief. I don't know much about military justice, so I'm not saying that Trump's actions in Gallagher's case were illegal. But the attitude those actions reveal is another worrying signal that Trump is moving the nation closer to having a government of men rather than of laws. S.G., Newark, NJ

V & Z: I thought this nuance might interest you. If you read the details of the Gallagher case, the person who confessed to murdering the adolescent ISIS fighter was the doctor, Corey Scott. His description of how he killed the boy was by "plugging his breathing tube after Gallagher unexpectedly stabbed the fighter while treating him for injuries suffered in an airstrike outside Mosul in 2017."

In other words, no one disputes that Gallagher spontaneously stabbed this boy in the neck. What the doctor actually claimed was that he personally was the cause of death, rather than the stab wound. The way he claims to have caused the death is by plugging the boy's breathing tube. To a bystander, of course, it might have looked as though he was trying to save the boy's life by stopping the bleeding. P.M., Miramar, CA

Healthcare Debate Makes Voters Sick

V & Z: A lot of U.S. politics seems to concern the cost of healthcare. One commenter noted that Americans pay a lot more than Canadians for healthcare. Actually, Americans pay more than anyone else in the world. In 2016, Americans paid US$9892 per capita. Second was Switzerland at US$7919. (Canada was 12th at $4753—less than half the US rate.) What interests me is that, despite all this money, by almost any indicator, American healthcare is doing a terrible job. For example:

  • Life expectancy: The US ranked 28th in 2016, at 78.6 years. Japan was first at 84.1 years. (Canada was 13th at 81.9 years.)
  • Infant Mortality: The US ranked 4th worst at 6.5/1000 live births. Iceland ranked 1st at 2.1. (Canada was 10th at 4.9.)

Similar results can be found for the outcomes of various infectious and chronic diseases, etc.

American politicians focus a lot of attention on the costs, but rarely if ever mention the results. Is this because of concern about creating panic? Is the usual American "we are the greatest" mythology blinding everyone to the facts? It would seem to me that outcomes should be at least as important as costs.

I have used far more than my share of the Canadian healthcare services, and I am well aware that our system is far from perfect. However I remain for ever glad that I have not lived in the US—I probably would have been dead decades ago. P.C., Burlington, Ontario, Canada

V & Z: You mention that Warren is slipping in Iowa, in part because of her embrace of Medicare For All, and that's probably true. But you argue that it is because Iowans fear high taxes due to that. Maybe, but remember that Des Moines's major industry is health insurance. Those people fear hundreds of thousands of layoffs and the death of the city. They are probably wrong about that, but I think that's the bigger concern. J.G., San Diego, CA

This Is My Country?

V & Z: Your item about how everything is closing in rural areas struck a chord with me. I grew up in a somewhat rural district of Ohio and moved to Chicago after college, so would love the Democrats to make more inroads into rural America. That said, I don't see much Democratic opportunity there. Even if the Democrats adopt ideas that will help these communities (such as increased access to broadband) and other infrastructure improvements, this is certainly not an instant fix. Getting infrastructure up to snuff will take years and convincing companies to locate there will take even longer. They will still be losing their kids to cities and companies will still bolt in the interim while this all takes place. How perceivable will this be to the residents and how much value would there be to the Democrats?

Obama was very supportive of programs to improve broadband access and provide job training in Appalachia. This certainly didn't translate to votes. This would certainly suggest that there just isn't the value.

This isn't to say that investment in these areas shouldn't take place. However, I don't think that either political party should expect much in the way of increased support. Heck, I could even see the Democrats losing support because of it being branded as a waste of money and leading to an increase in taxes.

Given the value of time, working to shift suburban and potentially exurban districts would certainly lead to a better situation from a voter perspective. These areas would already have a good amount of infrastructure, an amount of corporate interest and a more educated workforce. So, convincing people to start companies there or adding a branch office, is significantly easier. This hurdle to helping out this area is far lower and would be more perceivable. J.K., Waukesha, WI

V & Z: In all my reading about Trumpers, I don't recall seeing any of them holding signs protesting lack of access to banks or hospitals or broadband. What I mostly remember is an intense hostility toward non-whites.

If the rural folks went with Trump as a means of protesting a lack of banks and hospitals, they chose a poor way to express their discontent. I think they've mostly succeeded in making themselves appear un-American. Are the rurals willing to sell out the country with a slimeball like Trump to get more services? If so, how can anyone respect them? They've only earned disrespect; why reward poor behavior with tax dollar welfare from city residents?

Indeed, the Rurals have already gotten twice the welfare with the farm bailout than Detroit got during the auto crisis.

Paul Krugman wrote a good article on this subject. Perhaps all these towns just need to be turned into ghost towns.

The rurals could move to the city if they want more services. But then perhaps they'd be living in a small apartment, not a large farmhouse. They'd have a dozen noisy neighbors instead of having their next neighbor live 2 miles away. They've have to ride a bus instead of driving an oversized pickup truck.

City people put up with a lot and these rural folks don't really get it. C.T., Seattle, WA

V & Z: That was an excellent piece on rural areas and the closing of various businesses and schools. I live in Rep. Elise Stefanik's (R-NY) district, 10 minutes from the Canadian border, 10 minutes from the Akwasasne Mohawk reservation, in the largest county with the smallest population in New York state. In the years of George W. Bush, we lost 3 factories in the town I live in, a mine for minerals 1 hour away, as well as shipping jobs. In short, our area is poor. We have four colleges, two of them private and two of them part of the SUNY (State University of New York) system. The primary job up here is law enforcement in some form or other. Democrats come up here once a year it seems. Republicans show up in the area and spread whatever talking points they have with conviction, whereas Democratic nominees come up and do a photo op. The rare exception being someone like Stefanik's opponent Tedra Cobb, who is from the area. The area has no identity it feels, and the Republicans play on that. And watching their plans fail this area while they blow smoke is disheartening and upsetting, to say the least.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to these areas in some way, and more often. Republicans do know this and their policies are held close to the people's chests. And the people gobble up the lies faster than the turkey on Thanksgiving. J.W., North Lawrence, NY

This Week's Horse Race Feedback

V & Z: You published my letter about Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) a couple weekends ago, and, well, it looks like I might have been exactly right. People jumped on her bandwagon and then she decided to be super-liberal instead of the pragmatic leader she'd originally campaigned as. It's not surprising at all that she's losing steam. Of course, it's still early, she could recover, but she has work to do to undo all the extremism she unleashed. E.M., Chicago, IL

V & Z: When I read the comment regarding your lack of focus on Biden's "best arguments", this paragraph struck me:

First, Biden re-emphasized that foreign leaders know his background and would understand that his statements and actions would all be for the purpose of advancing the goals and objectives of the United States. None would be for his personal advantage to the detriment of U.S. interests.

I feel as though Trump's behavior and approach to the presidency are causing the public to lower their standards, significantly. I mean, Biden's best argument was basically that he was going to make sure to do his job? That's like me as a teacher making a statement such as, "I will ensure I grade and return all student work, with feedback, within two weeks of it being submitted." Most teachers would agree that is what we are supposed to do, and not doing it consistently would reflect badly on our commitment to our students. So if Biden's best argument of the night was that he will make sure to do his job, that's enough for people to get behind him?

It's like the American people know they need to "break up" with Trump because he's a bad boyfriend and it's an abusive relationship going nowhere, yet our "rebound" is going to be some old guy we don't really have feelings for, but he offers to take us to dinner, so "why not?" If Biden ends up being that rebound, I'm concerned our ability to have "healthy relationships" is wavering as a people and could be lost permanently. L.H., Armenia, Colombia

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at
Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger
Nov30 Saturday Q&A
Nov29 Trump Paints Impeachment as an Attack on All Conservatives
Nov29 Nadler Invites Trump to the First Judiciary Committee Hearing on Impeachment
Nov29 The Knives Are Coming Out for Buttigieg
Nov29 Yang Releases His Tax Returns
Nov29 Richard Spencer Is Not Going Gentle into that Good Night
Nov29 Congress May Pass a Bill Somewhat Limiting Robocalls
Nov29 Georgia Governor Brian Kemp May Cross Trump When Filling Isakson's Seat
Nov29 Cummings' Daughters Support Their Father's Aide, Not His Wife
Nov28 Are Trump and Giuliani Turning on Each Other?
Nov28 Giuliani Was Also Doing Business in Ukraine
Nov28 Poll: Support for Impeachment Is Holding Steady
Nov28 Warren Is Slipping in Iowa
Nov28 Some Voters Want Divided Government
Nov28 Everything is Closing in Rural Areas
Nov28 Moderators for December Debate Named
Nov28 North Carolina Senate Race Could Break Spending Records--Again
Nov28 William Ruckelshaus Dies
Nov28 I Am Not a Crook: A Look at History's Most Scandalous Scandals, Part III
Nov27 Impeachment Inquiry Never Stops
Nov27 Trump, GOP Angry at Google
Nov27 Warren Gets a Bad Poll
Nov27 What Is Bloomberg Thinking?
Nov27 Obama Reportedly Doesn't Want Sanders to Get the Nomination
Nov27 I Am Not a Crook: A Look at History's Most Scandalous Scandals, Part II
Nov26 Navy SEAL Situation Devolves from "Big Mess" to "Total Fiasco"
Nov26 Legal Blotter, Part I: The Congressional Subpoenas
Nov26 Legal Blotter, Part II: The Tax Returns
Nov26 Activist Group Says New Citizens Could Flip Swing States
Nov26 Perry Calls Trump "The Chosen One"
Nov26 Trump Certainly Looks Like He's Losing Support
Nov26 I Am Not a Crook: A Look at History's Most Scandalous Scandals, Part I
Nov25 Bloomberg Is Running
Nov25 Report: Nunes Met with Former Ukrainian Official to Get Dirt on Biden
Nov25 What's Next?
Nov25 Will Bolton Testify at the Impeachment Trial?
Nov25 Ruling in McGahn Case Is Expected Today
Nov25 Mulvaney Tried to Justify Holding Up Ukraine Aid Afterwards
Nov25 Trump: Pompeo Might Run for the Senate
Nov25 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Hospitalized Again
Nov25 Navy Secretary Richard Spencer Is Fired
Nov24 Sunday Mailbag
Nov23 Saturday Q&A
Nov22 Two More Nails in the Impeachment Coffin
Nov22 GOP Plots Impeachment Strategy
Nov22 FBI Official Under Investigation for Document Tampering
Nov22 Trump Signs Short-Term Funding Bill
Nov22 Trump Gets Another Tax Return Victory
Nov22 Google to Significantly Limit Targeted Political Ads
Nov22 About that Trump Jr. "Bestseller"