ggBarabajagal

Trump did not win all 50 states in the GOP primaries. In 2016. Cruz won Texas and a handful of other Midwestern and non-coastal western states; Kasich won his home state of Ohio, and Marco Rubio won in Minnesota.

In 2020, in some states, the GOP didn't even bother holding primaries or caucuses. States like Kansas, Nevada, SC, cancelled public voting in primaries and caucuses after the RNC pledged its undivided support to Trump in back February of that year. So Trump didn't really "win" primaries in "all 50 states" in 2020 either, because primaries were not held in all 50 states.

There have been rumors about this for months now. We already know Meadows has met with Jack Smith, and that Meadows' testimony about his book was used in making the DoJ's federal cases against Trump.

So why is this story breaking now? Why are the rumors about Meadows' immunity suddenly newsworthy?

I think it's because Meadows is getting ready to flip in the Georgia case, too. His immunity deal with the DoJ doesn't help him at all if he gets convicted in Georgia.

Meadows was unable to move the RICO case to a federal court. Now Hall, Powell, Chesebro, and Ellis have all taken deals in Georgia. Those who flip first get the best deals, and I bet Meadows is looking to be looking to be number 5 out of 19.

There will be no going back from this for him, though. The next flip in the Georgia case will be just as public as the last four have been. It will be Meadows' Michael Cohen moment. The point of no return.

I wonder if Meadows will flip next.

It looks a lot like Meadows may already have some sort of a deal with Jack Smith and the feds, but that doesn't do him any good if he's convicted in Georgia.

If Meadows does cut a deal in Georgia, though, it will be made public (just like the last four flips have been). Unlike whatever he may have going on with the DoJ, so far.

It would be his "Michael Cohen moment." The point of no return.

Hall --> Powell --> Cheesebro --> Ellis --> (?)

Flippity floppity. Who will be next?

Again, I acknowledge your point about accessibility.

When you say something like "I wouldn't count Windsor," however, it suggests to me that you've never been to Detroit and that you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

--

EDIT to add:

I don't think you've been to Detroit, but I'm not sure that you've been to New York City, either?

It seems as if you are thinking of Manhattan as all of NYC, or at least as the center of NYC. Geographically, it is not.

I'd agree Manhattan is "central" to NYC, in terms of culture and politics and money. But it could not be -- it would not even exist as it does today -- were it not for the other four boroughs. It takes all five boroughs to make New York City. The shape of the whole city is as irregular as any other city built on the water, and the center of it is nowhere near Central Park or Manhattan.

In fact, the only way that Central Park is close to being geographically "central" to the whole city is if you include Newark NJ as part of the city. But New Jersey is a totally different state from the State of New York. (I mean sure, you don't need a passport to go across bridges or through tunnels, but still: You see where I'm going with this, don't you?)

Detroit is laid out differently from NYC, more like the spokes of a wheel or a spiderweb, instead of a grid like Manhattan. Downtown Detroit (the most "urban" area of the city) and Belle Isle are both at the center of the wheel.

Not sure you'd get a sense of that by "looking at it" on a map, but Belle Isle at least as close to downtown Detroit as Central park is to lower Manhattan.

You do have to take a bridge to get there though, since it's an island, so you may have a point about accessibility in that regard.

Nevertheless, Belle Isle is a large park in the middle of an urban area. Especially if you bring Windsor into the mix.

So "conservative" means "MAGA" here?

Not the most accurate use of the term "conservative," IMO, but it's a good job noting the diverging viewpoints between the them and the so-called "war-mongering RINOs"

It sounds like this Scott Graham Hall guy flipped on Sidney. So now who's Sidney going to flip on?

She was in a lot of meetings with a lot of people, including Trump and Giuliani. I bet she has a lot to say about that.

Giant food stores in Mid-Atlantic US

What does that mean though, "anti-war party," "anti-war politician"?

Did your "anti-war party" stop being so because they'd ended the war we were in? And if so, wasn't that a good thing, for those with an "anti-war" outlook?

Back in the late 1930s, I'm pretty sure America's "anti-war party" was mostly isolationists and some Nazi sympathizers. It was FDR, one of the most progressive Democrats ever elected to the office, who led the country to war back then.

If your entire political belief system is based on avoiding war at all costs, you deny yourself any real-world context in exchange for that purist ideology.

Those who are anti-war above all else lose everything they have and everything they stand for, the first time someone (anyone!) else decides to threaten them with war. The first time that someone sneak-attacks their Pearl Harbor, or crashes planes into their Twin Towers, or whatever else.

Maybe war is like abortion (in this singularly metaphorical political sense). Nobody ever really wants it to happen, and most people do their best to try to avoid it for themselves and others. Yet sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, it ends up being the safest and healthiest way, sometimes the only way, out of an untenable situation not completely of our own making.

I'm not arguing that World War II was a "good" war and that W. Bush's Iraq was a "bad" war. That may comport with my personal beliefs, but my real point is that everyone has their own personal beliefs. Everyone has something that is most important to them.

If you say that war is never justified for any reason, then you are also saying that your call for pacifism is more important than whatever the reason for the war may be. Not just more important for you, but for everyone else too.

We have plenty of monuments and remembrances for military personnel who have given their lives for their country. We celebrate our veterans, at least as well as we take care of them.

We don't have the same opportunities to celebrate, or monumentalize, or even just remember the people in the intelligence community who given their lives for their country. One of the few places we do have for that sort of thing is the CIA’s Memorial Wall. Like all monuments to fallen patriots, it is intended to be a place of quiet reverence and reflection.

On the night of his 2017 inauguration, Trump and his wife stopped by to do a little dance and give a little speech, in which he bragged about himself and insulted the media and his political rivals. It doesn't sound like much now, after all we've been through, but back then it was still shocking.

It was shocking that anyone would act with such disrespect in that place. Moreover, it was profoundly disheartening that the person who was acting with such disrespect would be the same person who was now in charge of all the precious national intelligence that those fallen heroes had given their lives to obtain. Those fallen heroes with their stars hanging on the walls behind Trump, as blathered to the cameras on with one of his rehashed schticks about how smart he is.

--

Ex-CIA Boss Brennan, Others Rip Trump Speech in Front of Memorial [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-cia-boss-brennan-others-rip-trump-speech-front-memorial-n710366]

--

At CIA headquarters, Trump boasts about himself, denies feud [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cia-langley-233971]

--

I remember this speech now, reading this article about Steele, because it sounds like Trump got at least two more people killed for the sake of his pathetic narcissism.

By declassifying the Steele report, for no reason except spite, Trump endangered the lives of every agent and every source even tangentially involved with its creation, across the globe. Two more sources in Russia suddenly disappear thanks to Trump, no suprise. And what else disappears? All of those networks of information, which cost thousands of hours of expert work and millions of dollars of taxpayer money to develop.

When we invest in an intelligence project, the information networks we develop are where we put all our money and resources. Those networks are the "principal." The intelligence we gain from the networks is just the "dividend."

Yet Trump is anxious to spend the principle, even if only as a gift to a foreign leader he's trying to impress. As if any of it -- principle or dividend -- was ever his to spend. (Or to store in an extra bathroom at his house in Florida.)

There is a phone app, that pretty much allows you phone to work like the scanner gun. I've used it before and it works fine, but my phone's camera is not as good as the guns at scanning barcodes.

Also, as much as I realize I am trading privacy for control, I figure there's no need to have the grocery store's app living on my phone, when it is just as easy for me to use the dedicated device they provide in-store.