Here's the Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the Trump NY tax case

A few initial impressions.

The appellate court very astutely narrowed the scope of the appeal to an extremely limited, simple question:

"[W]hen, if ever, a county prosecutor can subpoena a third‐party custodian for the financial and tax records of a sitting President, over which the President has no claim of executive privilege."

The court's answer was also very narrowly-tailored: [A]fter reviewing historical and legal precedent, we conclude only that presidential immunity does not bar the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non‐privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President."

This issue and ruling as so tight that it makes it unnecessary for the Supreme Court, if it hears the appeal, to offer a broad opinion of presidential immunity, something Trump no doubt wants it to do. Of course, the Supreme Court can broaden the issue as far as it likes, but the appellate court's approach makes it far less likely that it will do so. And it would be difficult for Trump's attorneys to ask for a broader scope on appeal since the only issue the court gave them to appeal is the narrow issue of whether a state grand jury can compel a third party to produce non-privileged material in an investigation that pertains to the president.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/58e408e9-0748-4e6d-b330-23df304e855a/1/doc/19-3204_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/58e408e9-0748-4e6d-b330-23df304e855a/1/hilite/

Why is Tulsi Gabbard on MSNBC whining about "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy"?

I turned it off when I heard she was going to be on, but turned it back on too soon - just in time to hear her denigrating "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy."

First of all, Hillary Clinton didn't HAVE a "foreign policy." She was President Barack Obama's Secretary of State, so anything she did, was in furtherance of HIS foreign policy.

Second, why is she obsessively running against a former Secretary of State who has left public life and is not in the presidential race?

Never mind. I think I know the answer to that one.

And third, and perhaps most important, why on God's green earth would ANY actual Democrat support this woman?

Why are some Democrats denying the role race and gender play in how Harris is being received?

I've noticed that at the same time some people say we maybe shouldn't select a woman or minority as the Democratic nominee because too many "other" people wouldn't vote for them and we have no room for error this time around, many of those same people adamantly deny that Kamala Harris' difficulty gaining traction in the Democratic field has anything to do with her being a black woman?

How can one be true but not the other? Do Democrats really believe we live in a country so full of racism and sexism that a black woman can't win a general election, but that we Democrats are completely untainted by that pervasive racism and sexism? Surely that's not the only challenge she's got, but why deny that racism and sexism could be and likely are playing a part, even a small one, in how a black female presidential candidate is faring in the primaries?

It seems to me that if we are truly concerned about the beams in everyone else's eyes, we need to first remove beam in our own, which we can't do if we don't even recognize and acknowledge it.

Tim Wise's wise advice: Ignore the Trump voters who haven't already flipped

Hear hear. If they haven't abandoned him by now, they're going to stick with him to the bitter end. Stop wasting time on them.
They're a lost cause. Leave them where they are and focus elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/1190428803186561025

Kamala to Beto: "Thank you for running the race you did and for always speaking from the heart"

Brilliant advice re Voting: Get on the damned bus.

I am SO sick of reporters harping on the impeachment timetable

These are the same people who maligned and second-guessed Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats for months, suggesting (and sometimes coming right out in saying) that she was skittish, nalve didn't understand, etc., only to have her prove to the world that she was a considerable number of steps ahead of everyone.

But instead of recognizing that maybe she knows what she's doing, now they are questioning whether she and the other Democrats are aware of the sensitive timetable at play.- as if Speaker Pelosi doesn't have a calendar and they must explain it to her.