US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[MetalHex]

Do you have anything with more substance? Those are both opinion pieces.



So the takeaway is that we need more, smaller, hospitals that actively compete against each other by reducing costs associated with billing, record keeping, legal compliance, and malpractice insurance.

I don't see how that's going to make care better and cheaper. Maybe cheaper, but at what cost?

Looking at late stage capitalism, what about more hospitals is going to stop consolidation and foster competition?

I also wouldn't put much faith in an article based around The Manhattan Institute as they're nearly 50% funded by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.

That's the thing, if we adopted single payer we wouldn't have to pay anymore than we already do, in fact we'd have to pay less overall.

We already pay about $440 a month on average for shitty insurance. That's $1.3 trillion a year.

Sure, someone who is uninsured or massively under insured will have to pay more, but that's the cost of getting into the system, and in the long run, even for an overall healthy individual, it's still less costly than needing medical care and not having the ability to pay for it.

Modern medicine is expensive, especially when done to a high standard. If the options for providers are a) negotiate a lower price, or b) we all walk, they'll lower the price. That's how it works everywhere else but here. That's the biggest selling point of single payer, lower prices for the actual services rendered.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.

I don't honestly see a problem with us as a culture making the choice to take responsibility for our collective health. That actually seems a quite reasonable decision. Especially since with made the choice to be collectively responsible for educating our children, and (until recently) incarcerating our criminals. We collectively benefit from a more healthy, more educated populace. There is evidence for this all over the world.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

That's the thing, if we adopted single payer we wouldn't have to pay anymore than we already do, in fact we'd have to pay less overall.

We already pay about $440 a month on average for shitty insurance. That's $1.3 trillion a year.

Sure, someone who is uninsured or massively under insured will have to pay more, but that's the cost of getting into the system, and in the long run, even for an overall healthy individual, it's still less costly than needing medical care and not having the ability to pay for it.

Modern medicine is expensive, especially when done to a high standard. If the options for providers are a) negotiate a lower price, or b) we all walk, they'll lower the price. That's how it works everywhere else but here. That's the biggest selling point of single payer, lower prices for the actual services rendered.

Not to mention, lower prices on the things required to render said services, and pharmaceuticals.

 

[MetalHex]

So?

Maybe he's *actually* a Muslim and a Communist... how's that a problem? That's still all perfectly legal last I checked????

Ok, I have to call you out on the one-sidedism. Where were you in the last 100+ pages of people calling Trump a white nationalist? Thats perfectly legal last time I checked?

 

[Yul Brynner]

That's the thing, if we adopted single payer we wouldn't have to pay anymore than we already do, in fact we'd have to pay less overall.

We already pay about $440 a month on average for shitty insurance. That's $1.3 trillion a year.

Sure, someone who is uninsured or massively under insured will have to pay more, but that's the cost of getting into the system, and in the long run, even for an overall healthy individual, it's still less costly than needing medical care and not having the ability to pay for it.

Modern medicine is expensive, especially when done to a high standard. If the options for providers are a) negotiate a lower price, or b) we all walk, they'll lower the price. That's how it works everywhere else but here. That's the biggest selling point of single payer, lower prices for the actual services rendered.

GTFOH with your sensible ideas! Next you'll be talking about employees banding together and forcing employers to pay workers a decent living wage or some other communist propaganda!

 

[Randy]

Nothing to quote directly and I'm sure it's been discussed but the two biggest issues with the Republican/Libertarian approach to healthcare being resolved in the free market is

1.) private = profit motive, which means the goal is charging the most the market will bear rather than what's the cheapest for customer or best outcomes for patients. That means you're always going to have cushions between cost and what's charges, which goes up exponentially when you add corporate salaries and bonuses to the mix.

2.) private = competition, except unless it's pure anarchy, medical industry will always have to be heavily regulated because "if a restaurant sucks, bad reviews will stop people from going there" doesn't work when you're talking about pills that will kill thousands/millions of people before you realize they're bad.

3.) Other problem with private = competition is that there will always be classes of people who cannot afford insurance or paying to go to the doctor out of pocket, so Medicare and Medicaid is impossible to avoid and if the government is involved in the marketplace, they're always going to have regulation on themselves and tools available to them beyond what private insurance can offer. Only solution would be NO option for the poor/elderly and you're back to anarchy.

 

[StevenC]

Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.

Taxes wouldn't have to be raised because the government can already afford it. Plus what Max said about already having a separate payment in the form of insurance.

Also, with regards your last sentence, you do understand how insurance works, right? A group of people get together to pay in, so in the event of an emergency they can take the money out of the pot instead of their own pocket. It's literally your issue of being responsible for others, because unless you get sicker than everyone else you're going to lose.

The difference between giving this money to an insurance company and giving it to a government is the insurance company has to profit. Then you're also going to a for profit hospital.

 

[Drew]

I think what you are trying to assume is that anyone who is aginst globalism is a "white, nationalist", and anyone who is a "white, nationalist", thinks that jews run the world. Is that correct?

Im not sure where you are getting that from or what you're basing that on but there's idiots on all sides regardless if your non-point makes any sense or not. Btw, I'm not calling you an idiot

No - like I said, you're probably unaware of the connotations. Rather, I'm pointing out that railing against "globalists" has been a very overt white nationalist dog-whistle for blaming Jews for all the world's ills. I'm just suggesting given the rest of your anti-immigration political views, this is one y

I really don't think that matters though.
If I say "I don't think globalization of the widget industry is a net benefit, and will serve as a fast-track to lower quality standards and an exploited workforce with negligible benefits," I think a normal person would understand what I'm saying without conflating me with a guy harping about "the jews!!" all day.

I'll give you context; for sure. Can't say I've seen a context that points directly to antisemitism, but I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, and yeah, that's fair.
But the whole "well this word really means X" exercise is just a waste of everyone's time and energy, imo. Like if someone is a white nationalist, I think you're going to know they're a white nationalist without them saying the word 'globalists.'

--
An edit in response to an edit
Is the phrase "Globalists rule the world" inherently antisemitic though? I would argue that that statement is true; globalists do the world, as evidenced by the trend toward globalization across seemingly all first-world countries. If world leaders weren't globalists, why would they guide their people toward it?

And even if the word is being used with disdain, I don't see how it's different from when the words 'democrat' or 'republican' are used disdainfully. If I dislike and look down on republicans as a whole, and I mutter about "those damn republicans," because I dislike right-wing politics, how is that strictly different from when I mutter "those damn globalists," because I dislike globalism? Unless there's some kind of explicit implication at play (which, yeah; context), I don't see how it's any different.

I think it's just a case of being aware of the potentially negative connotations and being careful how you proceed. There's nothing inherently evil with being opposed to globalism and in favor of economic isolationism. I personally think that's the wrong approach, and that global trade has been broadly beneficial to the world as a whole in terms of the quality, quantity, and variety of goods being produced and consumed. But, you've demonstrated yourself to be a pretty rational, thoughtful guy, haven't really said anything I can think of that would make me being concerned for your racial views, and if you make an allusion to globalism I'm going to be more inclined to interpret it as referring to global trade and exchange, based on what else I know about your thinking.

It's when we have guys like MetalHex using it in the context of slamming immigrants potentially getting government-provided health insurance in California, and when in his reply he starts to refer to "white, nationalism" rather than "white nationalism" which only makes sense if you're trying to disassociate the term from its ethno-state origins, that it seems like maybe it would be a good idea to point out that the term actually DOES have a long history by being used by white nationalist groups as a way of alluding to Jews without actually saying "Jew."

 

[Drew]

Nothing to quote directly and I'm sure it's been discussed but the two biggest issues with the Republican/Libertarian approach to healthcare being resolved in the free market is

1.) private = profit motive, which means the goal is charging the most the market will bear rather than what's the cheapest for customer or best outcomes for patients. That means you're always going to have cushions between cost and what's charges, which goes up exponentially when you add corporate salaries and bonuses to the mix.

2.) private = competition, except unless it's pure anarchy, medical industry will always have to be heavily regulated because "if a restaurant sucks, bad reviews will stop people from going there" doesn't work when you're talking about pills that will kill thousands/millions of people before you realize they're bad.

3.) Other problem with private = competition is that there will always be classes of people who cannot afford insurance or paying to go to the doctor out of pocket, so Medicare and Medicaid is impossible to avoid and if the government is involved in the marketplace, they're always going to have regulation on themselves and tools available to them beyond what private insurance can offer. Only solution would be NO option for the poor/elderly and you're back to anarchy.

Excellent post, man. There are two points you're forgetting, though:

4.) "Health care" isn't a consumable good in the same way, oh, Pepsi is, where you can choose to not drink Pepsi, and that's the end of it. Rather, Health care is what we provide to people who get hurt, get sick, or are dying. We all get hurt, we all get sick, and we all die. At some point in our lives, every single one of us is guaranteed to be a consumer of health care. This is compounded by...

5.) The US healthcare system, like virtually/probably every healthcare system in the world, is bound by the Hippocratic Oath:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

...which essentially requires doctors to, if they CAN treat the sick, then they MUST do so. US legal precedent has entrenched this further, so if you show up at a hospital, sick, injured, or dying, and have no coverage and are unable to pay, the hospital is still unable to turn you away and must treat you to the best of their abilities, if you either want to be treated or are unable to express through direct communication or prior medical proxy that you do not want to be treated.

So, to wrap those two points up together, buying health insurance is like buying Pepsi, except you HAVE to drink Pepsi, you may not be able to plan when and where you drink Pepsi, and when you need to drink Pepsi and if you show up at the store with no money and no Free Pepsi IOU, the store just has to give you Pepsi and find some way to offset the cost - say, by raising the cost of Pepsi for people who do plan on the fact they have to drink Pepsi one day, and prepare for it. In that world, is it any wonder that Pepsi is so expensive?

Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.

Reading this I honestly don't think you understand how the insurance markets work. There are a lot of reasons that health care costs have increased as much as they have for the last several decades, and some of them can be addressed from within the system - in fact, the ACA is helping move medicine from charging based on procedures to charging based on outcomes, which removes a whole bunch of perverse incentives that were causing costs to rise. It also did a lot to foster competition within states, notably by setting up ACA exchanges where consumers could choose from a large number of competing plans to help let competition drive costs down, and where health insurance inflation is the worst has largely been in the red states that fought this requirement and refused to set up exchanges to foster competition.

But, the single biggest issue with insurance markets, is in a world with good access to health care, insurers unable to bar patients for pre-existing conditions, and hospitals bound by the Hippocratic oath, the opportunity cost for low-risk patients to forego health insurance is pretty low. Since they're low risk, they're not likely to need insurance for routine issues, so their two major risks are 1) unexpected accident, or 2) unexpected development of a high risk medical condition. If the former happens they will still receive emergency care, and if it's more than they can afford it'll likely be forgiven during the ensuing bankruptcy proceedings. If the latter happens, they just have to hold on to the next open enrollment period, and they'll be eligible to sign up for health insurance with no additional penalty for now being high risk and expecting to need very expensive treatment for potentially a very long period of time. If you want to throw out the mandate, that's fine... But to not absolutely torpedo the markets by pulling out all the low risk patients and raising the average risk profile of the pool, thereby increasing the cost of insurance, you have to either allow insurers to reject patients they know they can never hope to recover the cost of covering (since they ARE a for-profit business, after all) and let hospitals start turning away patients who can't pay for the services they're about to receive, or accept that insurance is just going to continue to get more and more expensive, and the only people who will be able to take it out are the very rich, or those who already had coverage when they got sick and know they'll be spending a lot more on care without it than with it.

I mean, if this isn't really your area of expertise, I get it... risk pools and markets can get reasonably wonky quickly... But if you don't really understand how this stuff works, opinions like "I think it should be cheaper, and I shouldn't have to have it if I don't want it" are just vague pipe dreams.

 

[Drew]

8 weeks ago I got an operation that would cost $150,000 on average in the USA. There was a complication that meant I had to spend an extra 2 weeks in hospital and go through the the same operation again. Plus 2 MRIs and maybe 10 x-rays, plus all the medication I've been taking still, I'd say that'd easily be a $350,000+ bill anywhere in the USA. I've had physiotherapy every week and probably 10 GP appointments.

Glad to hear you're ok, man. That's quite the scare.

 

[Xaios]

Where Kirk Cameron was talking about how christians should talk to non-believers and must bypass people's intellect.

Humorous aside. A little over 4 years ago, when I was spending my first night of what turned out to be a month long stay in the hospital (which, by the way, cost me nothing but time and the end of my right middle finger because bloodclots are bastards), I was pretty delusional. I spent the first few days in and out of lucidity, and had paranoid delusions for the first 3 nights. The first night, I was terrified that they were going to kick me out because I didn't have my health care card on my person when I was admitted.

The second night? Well, that night I was absolutely convinced that Kirk Cameron was going to kidnap me from the hospital during the night and radicalize me.

Bear in mind, I am a christian, so the fact that even I think he's scary enough to have paranoid delusions about just goes to show how fucking nuts he is.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

I think it's just a case of being aware of the potentially negative connotations and being careful how you proceed. There's nothing inherently evil with being opposed to globalism and in favor of economic isolationism. I personally think that's the wrong approach, and that global trade has been broadly beneficial to the world as a whole in terms of the quality, quantity, and variety of goods being produced and consumed. But, you've demonstrated yourself to be a pretty rational, thoughtful guy, haven't really said anything I can think of that would make me being concerned for your racial views, and if you make an allusion to globalism I'm going to be more inclined to interpret it as referring to global trade and exchange, based on what else I know about your thinking.

It's when we have guys like MetalHex using it in the context of slamming immigrants potentially getting government-provided health insurance in California, and when in his reply he starts to refer to "white, nationalism" rather than "white nationalism" which only makes sense if you're trying to disassociate the term from its ethno-state origins, that it seems like maybe it would be a good idea to point out that the term actually DOES have a long history by being used by white nationalist groups as a way of alluding to Jews without actually saying "Jew."

It's funny because I tend to agree; can't get my shiny new Ibanez if we don't do much business with Japan, can I? I'm just a language stickler.

The reason why I get hung up on stuff like this is for the public, if you're speaking with someone where you don't know much else about their method of thinking or the nuance behind their political views, I think it's important to, by default, give people the benefit of the doubt. Taking a step back, I know that you personally are the type of person to do this; but my concern over the spread of the "well, this is just coded language" mentality stems over that seeping into the public. To me, it sounds super dangerous to think that we're trending toward a state where people make their mind up about you over your use of a word or phrase that has been communicated to them as coded language when it really isn't. I think this attitude is playing a key role in how the public discourse is getting increasingly polarized. I know personally it's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you guys too.
Not to mention this whole kerfluffle over the 'ok' hand sign, christ on the cross, what a joke. Just end me, dude.

Not to be hyperbolic- this stuff is clearly a small piece of a much bigger issue, and again; as with most of the stuff I bitch about, I know you guys are all very likely not like this. I just call it as I see it. We have a big problem with people assuming others' intentions right now. Hell, for a recent example just look at Shapiro making an absolute fool of himself on the BBC a week or two ago. He conducts the interview assuming he knows everything about Neil, because Neil dropped one phrase that was pretty incendiary, accuses him of being a leftist partisan, and winds up looking like a complete idiot because Andrew Neil is actually heavily right-wing. I love Ben but man that hurt to watch.

I just think we'd be better off not propagating that line of thinking. Everyone these days think they know better than everyone else, and it's resulting in civil discourse being the exception over the norm. Dude it's tough to even have conversations like this in person, because most of the people I know fall under this umbrella. I agree with my father politically on a lot of things, but if I mention that I think Tulsi Gabbard has some really valid points and that I may actually vote for her; it's "the dems are all the same, you know she's going to do X and Y the second she gets into office." Skepticism is healthy but if you assume people's intentions nothing ever gets accomplished.

Like I said. Language stickler. I take small things very seriously. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Drew]

It's funny because I tend to agree; can't get my shiny new Ibanez if we don't do much business with Japan, can I? I'm just a language stickler.

The reason why I get hung up on stuff like this is for the public, if you're speaking with someone where you don't know much else about their method of thinking or the nuance behind their political views, I think it's important to, by default, give people the benefit of the doubt. Taking a step back, I know that you personally are the type of person to do this; but my concern over the spread of the "well, this is just coded language" mentality stems over that seeping into the public. To me, it sounds super dangerous to think that we're trending toward a state where people make their mind up about you over your use of a word or phrase that has been communicated to them as coded language when it really isn't. I think this attitude is playing a key role in how the public discourse is getting increasingly polarized. I know personally it's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you guys too.
Not to mention this whole kerfluffle over the 'ok' hand sign, christ on the cross, what a joke. Just end me, dude.

Not to be hyperbolic- this stuff is clearly a small piece of a much bigger issue, and again; as with most of the stuff I bitch about, I know you guys are all very likely not like this. I just call it as I see it. We have a big problem with people assuming others' intentions right now. Hell, for a recent example just look at Shapiro making an absolute fool of himself on the BBC a week or two ago. He conducts the interview assuming he knows everything about Neil, because Neil dropped one phrase that was pretty incendiary, accuses him of being a leftist partisan, and winds up looking like a complete idiot because Andrew Neil is actually heavily right-wing. I love Ben but man that hurt to watch.

I just think we'd be better off not propagating that line of thinking. Everyone these days think they know better than everyone else, and it's resulting in civil discourse being the exception over the norm. Dude it's tough to even have conversations like this in person, because most of the people I know fall under this umbrella. I agree with my father politically on a lot of things, but if I mention that I think Tulsi Gabbard has some really valid points and that I may actually vote for her; it's "the dems are all the same, you know she's going to do X and Y the second she gets into office." Skepticism is healthy but if you assume people's intentions nothing ever gets accomplished.

Like I said. Language stickler. I take small things very seriously. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Language stickler here too. No wonder we enjoy debating.

I mean, I don't entirely disagree here, and I think there's an argument against taking things too far. Again, a lot of the reason I made that particular observation wasn't a general belief the phrase "globalism" is forever tainted, but had a lot to do with conversation-specific context.

But, I think there's also a point past which things are just too tainted to touch. Goodwin's Law, here, of course, but technically speaking, a swastika is an old Judeo-Christian symbol just in reverse. That doesn't mean you're not SERIOUSLY asking for trouble by wearing a piece of jewelry with that insignia on it. Similarly, lots of people had thin, narrow mustaches before Hitler, but those are pretty clearly off limits as well these days. We're talking what are obviously extreme examples, but in the interest of defining boundaries, I think there definitely are things that are just forever off limits in public discourse because of the strength of their connotations.

As far as defining where the other goalposts are... "Globalism" is probably a phrase that's generally safe to use absent other strong conversational cues, though I'm less sure that's still true with "globalist." Someone talking about a "globalist agenda" is probably, intentionally or otherwise, communicating something other than an agenda of reducing barriers to trade and exchange ideas - it's a term that beyond its very specific coded references to Jews in the history of KKK-affiliated public groups probably been generalized to someone who opposes ethnic nationalism. Barring some movement to take back the term vis a vis "queer" and the gay rights movement that's one I'd be very leery of using simply because I DO think it's too far gone on the spectrum of "legitimate use" vs "strongly coded language."

End of the day, I guess part of communicating well, from an active standpoint, is being thoughtful and careful about your choice of language, and from a receptive standpoint, is being attentive to authorial intent when it comes to the use of language that could potentially convey meaning above and beyond the pure literal meaning, both in terms of not hearing things that weren't intended to be there, as well as being aware of things that were intended to be there.

tl;dr - words matter. And using the wrong words while lambasting immigration can make you look like WAY more of an asshole than you really are, if you're not careful.

 

[Explorer]

I'm trying to find a way to embed it, but Trump just accidentally admitted to having been called by Junior in the time period before the Trump Tower meeting, the call which has been previously denied.

This is why all his attorneys have avoided letting him speak under oath.

 

[Ralyks]

That sounds like a smoking gun to me...

 

[Explorer]

The New York bill which will allow turning over an individual's state tax returns to the heads of various Congressional House committees have now passed both chambers, and only await the governor's signature. Fortunately for those deeply concerned, this bill only deals with the taxes of any person who seeks the most visible public office in the US, and not those of any private citizen.

In response to Adam Schiff putting the contempt process for Barr on hold for the moment, the DoJ is handing over the first set of documents. Should the DoJ start holding back, the contempt train starts rolling again.

It also turns out that in response to unpublicized subpoenas from the US House, Wells Fargo and TD Bank have already turned over all of their copies of Trymp's records and documents.

Also unpublicized this week: Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State, testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee about Trump and Russia.

It looks like the self-claimed genius of Trump didn't even know that some of the chessboards, of whch he needs to win them all, were even in play.

 

[Drew]

I'm trying to find a way to embed it, but Trump just accidentally admitted to having been called by Junior in the time period before the Trump Tower meeting, the call which has been previously denied.

This is why all his attorneys have avoided letting him speak under oath.

Got a source?

 

[Explorer]

I'm trying to find a way to embed it, but Trump just accidentally admitted to having been called by Junior in the time period before the Trump Tower meeting, the call which has been previously denied.

This is why all his attorneys have avoided letting him speak under oath.

That sounds like a smoking gun to me...

Got a source?

Absolutely!

Trump Admits That Don Jr. Called Him Before the Trump Tower Meeting - Hill Reporter

Worth remembering: Trump denied that he was one of the calls in his written answers under oath to Mueller, so... perjury.

Clinton got impeached on one count of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, so folks like McConnell and Graham will definitely appear even more hypocritical if they defend Trump's perjury and numerous obstructions.

 

[synrgy]

So this will be a major sidebar, but, I was too young to care at the time, and have never understood why Slick Willy got to finish out his term post-impeachment?