I remember the day back in 1979 that Lucy promised that she would never pull back the football again, if Charlie Brown recovered from his injuries.  He did, of course, and over the years that followed, Lucy pulled it back every time.  Charlie Brown believed her every time.  For Charlie Brown, kicking they ball was his be all and end all, but he never did get to kick it.  Now I would never compare the mild mannered Charlie Brown with the vile bully, Donald Trump.  But like Charlie, Trump has a "football".  His be all and end all is putting on a big show, in which he gets to appear supremely important.  And just as he was drooling over the SOTU, Nancy Pelosi became Lucy.

House Democrats on Wednesday were making plans to undermine President Trump at his Jan. 29 State of the Union address. Just past 8:30 a.m., the leadership’s communications arm sent an email to lawmakers urging them to bring furloughed federal workers or other “message-related” guests to the nationally televised event.

Unknown to most of her caucus, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had decided on a more confrontational approach.

Addressing a closed-door meeting of House Democrats, the speaker read a letter she had just sent to Trump asking him to either postpone the speech until the federal government reopens or deliver the text in writing, citing security concerns.

Surprised Democratic lawmakers cheered their leader’s rationale: If the government stays shut down, Pelosi would deprive Trump of the spotlight he craves. To a president especially sensitive to acts of disrespect — and one with a hearty appetite for pomp and circumstance — the so-called unvitation was not merely a ­power play. It was a calculated personal slight… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Kudos to Nancy! Here are some more details.

On the other hand, what if Stormy gets to kick the balls?

RESIST!!

William Barr will almost surely be confirmed by the Senate as our next Attorney General.  I have severe reservations about him, but the best Democrats can hope to accomplish is to delay his nomination through procedural means.  Is it worth the effort to do so, or should we hold our limited political capital in the Senate for more critical matters?  Here are concerns from his hearing.

President Donald Trump’s efforts to exert control over the Justice Department — one of the few bodies left that can assert a real check on his power and corruption — have been an ongoing crisis and scandal during his time in office. In that context, his nomination of former Attorney General William Barr to retake the top position at the head of the department warrants extreme scrutiny.

And given the fact that Barr crafted a 20-page memo over the summer purporting to argue that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s theory of how the president obstructed justice — a theory Barr can’t, in fact, have had any reliable information about — looks so dubious. He passed the memo along to both Justice Department officials and Trump’s legal team, a move that appears suspiciously like an application for the attorney general position on the basis that he would counter Mueller’s and others’ potential attempts to expose the president’s wrongdoing.

But his history as attorney general on President George H.W. Bush and his standing as a respected conservative legal mind give him credibility among Senate Republicans, all but assuring that his nomination will be successful.

Given the likelihood that he will be approved, here are 10 disturbing moments from his testimony on Tuesday:

1. Barr doesn’t pledge to follow the ethics officials’ advice on recusing himself from investigations.

In perhaps the biggest takeaway of the day, Barr confirmed an answer he had already given to the Senate in writing: While he will consult with ethics officials about whether to recuse from investigations, including those involving the president, he did not pledge to follow their guidance.

“Under the regulations, I make the decision,” he said.

This is particularly disturbing because Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who clearly appeared to be appointed in an effort for the president to gain control over the Mueller probe, reportedly refused an ethics official’s recommendation to recuse from it.

2. He did not commit to making Mueller’s report public.

Barr’s comments on the so-called “Mueller report” were somewhat complicated because, as he correctly pointed out, Mueller is not directed to release a report under the special counsel’s guidelines. Instead, Mueller will submit a report to the attorney general, and the attorney general may or may not then decide to release a public version of a report. Barr said he would try to get out as much information as is possible under the regulations.

But when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked specifically if he would “commit to make public all of the Mueller report’s conclusions, even if some of the evidence supporting the conclusions can’t be made public?” Barr only hedged, saying “That’s certainly my goal and intent.”

3. He said he didn’t know what the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause says.

One of the enduring violations of the Trump presidency has been his flouting of the Constitution’s Emoluments clause, which forbids public officers from taking forms of payment from foreign governments. Lawsuits are currently progressing against the president and the administration in this matter, but when pressed about the issue, Barr implausibly expressed ignorance.

“I think there’s a dispute about what the Emoluments Clause relates to,” Barr said. “I had not personally researched the emoluments clause. I can’t even tell you what it says at this point.”… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Alternet>

I shared only the first three concerns in Barr’s testimony.  Click through for the other seven.

The following video is an excerpt from Barr’s questioning by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT].

Like so many Republicans, he slithers well.

So what do we do?  I’d say it’s best not to fight his confirmation for the following reasons.  If we try, we will fail.  It’s best to avoid the enmity from Barr toward Senate Democrats that opposition would encourage.  Until a new AG is confirmed, Acting AG Matthew Whitaker, a goose-stepping Trump sycophant, is a major threat to the Russia investigation.  We won’t get a better nominee from Trump.

For now, it’s best to keep our powder dry.

RESIST!!