Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Go to blazes kid, many are up their own arses a bit including me but you have passed the event horizon.

I actually had to look blazes up and spilled my Doritos while doing so, so to speak.

Speaking of event horizons, with improvements in camera sensor technology and the use of fast telescopes with Lucky Imaging where videos of planets or even the brighter deep sky objects are used, optical telescopes on Earth are increasingly able to approach their Rayleigh Criterion resolution limits through less than perfect seeing conditions.

The above developments seems to make my idea of using a dedicated narrow pass filter in front my relatively inexpensive 4 or 7 500 mm or so (depending on wavelength to be imaged) high f-ratio, single lens refractors obsolete. The narrow pass filter would eliminate chromatic aberration, but a shorter f-ratio refractor would still have other serious optical issues. As imaging times increase through using higher f-ratios, the signal to noise ratio decreases as well as the ability to Lucky Image, especially on dim deep sky objects. The cost of buying fully corrected, 4 lens 500 mm custom built refractors is currently way beyond my budget. Although the “mass produced” 127mm APO refractors are more affordable at about $10k per pop, one of my other goals of being able to stitch together multiple images of smaller parts of a deep sky object together into a higher resolution mosaic would not be met. My ultimate goal is to create images that have a breathtaking “3d” effect through high resolution data and exceptional image processing skills. For all the images by the Hubble and larger telescopes, very few images have reached their maximum possible visual impact in my mind. Perhaps I could visit one of the new 30 meter observatories in Chile in 2025, when they are expected to be completed.

I wonder if the techniques I learn in signal processing could be utilized in short term trading? Grin.

So how are things going with your new telescope?

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-allies-ramp-up-efforts-to-unmask-whistleblower-11572724750

Trump Allies Ramp Up Efforts to Unmask Whistleblower
Some GOP lawmakers and conservative media outlets have sought to reveal a person they believe is behind the complaint even as other witnesses have supported its central findings

WASHINGTON—Some Republican lawmakers want to out the whistleblower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry and are amplifying articles in conservative media outlets that assert theories about the person’s identity.

In recent days, several conservative publications have named a person they speculate is the whistleblower. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and a handful of other Republican lawmakers have shared links on Twitter to those articles.

The Wall Street Journal and others have previously reported the whistleblower was a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

President Trump and his allies have continued to question the individual’s motives and suggested he is part of a partisan effort to topple the Trump presidency. Republican lawmakers have said the public has a right to know the person’s identity.

But those efforts have stoked concerns among Democrats and the whistleblower’s attorneys about his personal safety, as his assertions have subsequently been echoed by other witnesses and public records.

The media reports name a specific individual but have lacked any direct confirmation to show they have definitively learned the whistleblower’s identity.

Instead, the reports have relied on a pattern of personal and professional details they have said point to an individual as the likely whistleblower. The reports also have referenced Republicans bringing up the person’s name during closed-door impeachment hearings, incidents that Democrats have publicly denounced as targeted efforts to reveal the whistleblower. At least one Republican lawmaker has also mentioned the name in an open hearing unrelated to the impeachment inquiry.

In a statement Thursday evening, the lawyers representing the whistleblower said reporters should protect whistleblowers who lawfully expose government wrongdoing. They again declined to confirm or deny the person’s identity.

“Our client is legally entitled to anonymity,” the lawyers said. “Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger.”

The legal team representing the whistleblower has received multiple death threats that have led to at least one law-enforcement investigation, the Journal reported this week.

Some of the publications that have written about the alleged identity of the whistleblower have criticized the mainstream media for not pursuing the subject more aggressively.

Media ethicists said if journalists have confirmation of the name, they would have to weigh public interest in the whistleblower’s identity against the potential harm that could befall the individual, but added that the news value of his identity had diminished over time as more information about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has come to light.

“Journalists who like to keep sources anonymous will go to jail over that,” Tom Bivens, a professor of journalism ethics at the University of Oregon, said. “It seems to me that any journalist worth their salt would be willing to accept the anonymity of others bringing forward important information.”

Federal whistleblower law is designed to provide anonymity for intelligence employees so that they will feel emboldened to speak up about concerns of wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. But enforcing those protections can be difficult, according to national security lawyers, and relevant protections generally apply to inspectors general and certain members of Congress and their staff but not to other agency officials or the public.

Those protections aren’t traditionally viewed as extending to journalists, who would be protected under the First Amendment and may argue that their responsibility to inform the public prevails over any obligation to the whistleblower, according to legal experts.

The Aug. 12 intelligence community whistleblower complaint, which was released publicly in September, detailed concerns about Mr. Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the president pressed for Kyiv to investigate his political rivals. The Trump-appointed intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, determined the complaint was both urgent and credible. Mr. Trump has referred to the call as “perfect” and denied any wrongdoing in his interactions with Ukraine.

The attempts to unmask the whistleblower have continued as at least three other witnesses in the impeachment probe have told congressional investigators that they believed there was a quid pro quo linking Mr. Trump’s desire for investigations into his political rivals with either the withholding of security aid to Ukraine or the promise of a White House visit for Mr. Zelensky. The White House also released a rough transcript of the July call, which substantiated central aspects of the whistleblower’s complaint.

Democrats have argued that corroboration has decreased the need to have the whistleblower testify. His legal team has offered to the Senate and House intelligence committees written testimony in lieu of an in-person appearance before investigators, amid concerns that disclosing his identity to lawmakers could lead to it being publicly leaked.

A White House official said Friday the White House isn’t seeking to learn the whistleblower’s identity.

But Republicans in Congress have continued to press the issue. Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a close ally of the president, told reporters this week that the whistleblower didn’t deserve anonymity, though he did care about the person’s safety. “The reason why you have a whistleblower statute is so that they can come forward and not be retaliated against,” he said.

Democrats, dozens of former senior national security officials, whistleblower advocates and some Republicans have said the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity and that naming him could jeopardize his personal safety.

“I would hope that more of my GOP colleagues throughout the Congress on both sides of the Capitol would express their support for whistleblowers who have the courage to come forward and expose wrongdoing,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the impeachment inquiry, said. “They have the right to remain anonymous.”

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the impeachment inquiry, said. “They have the right to remain anonymous.”

Right to remain anonymous?

Heh, you wish Mr. Schitt. But no.

The whistlespy is well on his way to becoming a household name. He wanted to have his little fun- and he is about to get a whole lot more than he bargained for.

 

[WeToddDid2]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-allies-ramp-up-efforts-to-unmask-whistleblower-11572724750

Trump Allies Ramp Up Efforts to Unmask Whistleblower
Some GOP lawmakers and conservative media outlets have sought to reveal a person they believe is behind the complaint even as other witnesses have supported its central findings

WASHINGTON—Some Republican lawmakers want to out the whistleblower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry and are amplifying articles in conservative media outlets that assert theories about the person’s identity.

In recent days, several conservative publications have named a person they speculate is the whistleblower. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and a handful of other Republican lawmakers have shared links on Twitter to those articles.

The Wall Street Journal and others have previously reported the whistleblower was a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

President Trump and his allies have continued to question the individual’s motives and suggested he is part of a partisan effort to topple the Trump presidency. Republican lawmakers have said the public has a right to know the person’s identity.

But those efforts have stoked concerns among Democrats and the whistleblower’s attorneys about his personal safety, as his assertions have subsequently been echoed by other witnesses and public records.

The media reports name a specific individual but have lacked any direct confirmation to show they have definitively learned the whistleblower’s identity.

Instead, the reports have relied on a pattern of personal and professional details they have said point to an individual as the likely whistleblower. The reports also have referenced Republicans bringing up the person’s name during closed-door impeachment hearings, incidents that Democrats have publicly denounced as targeted efforts to reveal the whistleblower. At least one Republican lawmaker has also mentioned the name in an open hearing unrelated to the impeachment inquiry.

In a statement Thursday evening, the lawyers representing the whistleblower said reporters should protect whistleblowers who lawfully expose government wrongdoing. They again declined to confirm or deny the person’s identity.

“Our client is legally entitled to anonymity,” the lawyers said. “Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger.”

The legal team representing the whistleblower has received multiple death threats that have led to at least one law-enforcement investigation, the Journal reported this week.

Some of the publications that have written about the alleged identity of the whistleblower have criticized the mainstream media for not pursuing the subject more aggressively.

Media ethicists said if journalists have confirmation of the name, they would have to weigh public interest in the whistleblower’s identity against the potential harm that could befall the individual, but added that the news value of his identity had diminished over time as more information about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has come to light.

“Journalists who like to keep sources anonymous will go to jail over that,” Tom Bivens, a professor of journalism ethics at the University of Oregon, said. “It seems to me that any journalist worth their salt would be willing to accept the anonymity of others bringing forward important information.”

Federal whistleblower law is designed to provide anonymity for intelligence employees so that they will feel emboldened to speak up about concerns of wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. But enforcing those protections can be difficult, according to national security lawyers, and relevant protections generally apply to inspectors general and certain members of Congress and their staff but not to other agency officials or the public.

Those protections aren’t traditionally viewed as extending to journalists, who would be protected under the First Amendment and may argue that their responsibility to inform the public prevails over any obligation to the whistleblower, according to legal experts.

The Aug. 12 intelligence community whistleblower complaint, which was released publicly in September, detailed concerns about Mr. Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the president pressed for Kyiv to investigate his political rivals. The Trump-appointed intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, determined the complaint was both urgent and credible. Mr. Trump has referred to the call as “perfect” and denied any wrongdoing in his interactions with Ukraine.

The attempts to unmask the whistleblower have continued as at least three other witnesses in the impeachment probe have told congressional investigators that they believed there was a quid pro quo linking Mr. Trump’s desire for investigations into his political rivals with either the withholding of security aid to Ukraine or the promise of a White House visit for Mr. Zelensky. The White House also released a rough transcript of the July call, which substantiated central aspects of the whistleblower’s complaint.

Democrats have argued that corroboration has decreased the need to have the whistleblower testify. His legal team has offered to the Senate and House intelligence committees written testimony in lieu of an in-person appearance before investigators, amid concerns that disclosing his identity to lawmakers could lead to it being publicly leaked.

A White House official said Friday the White House isn’t seeking to learn the whistleblower’s identity.

But Republicans in Congress have continued to press the issue. Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a close ally of the president, told reporters this week that the whistleblower didn’t deserve anonymity, though he did care about the person’s safety. “The reason why you have a whistleblower statute is so that they can come forward and not be retaliated against,” he said.

Democrats, dozens of former senior national security officials, whistleblower advocates and some Republicans have said the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity and that naming him could jeopardize his personal safety.

“I would hope that more of my GOP colleagues throughout the Congress on both sides of the Capitol would express their support for whistleblowers who have the courage to come forward and expose wrongdoing,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the impeachment inquiry, said. “They have the right to remain anonymous.”

The hypocritical dems seem to have memory problems. If this was during Obama's Presidency, the whistleblower would be indicted by now.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones/

Obama’s War on Whistleblowers

White is black and down is up. Leaks that favor the president are shoveled out regardless of national security, while national security is twisted to pummel leaks that do not favor him. Watching their boss, bureaucrats act on their own, freelancing the punishment of whistleblowers, knowing their retaliatory actions will be condoned. The United States rains Hellfire missiles down on its enemies, with the president alone sitting in judgment of who will live and who will die by his hand.

The issue of whether the White House leaked information to support the president’s reelection while crushing whistleblower leaks it disfavors shouldn’t be seen as just another O’Reilly v. Maddow sporting event. What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.

The Obama administration has been cruelly and unusually punishing in its use of the 1917 Espionage Act to stomp on governmental leakers, truth-tellers, and whistleblowers whose disclosures do not support the president’s political ambitions. As Thomas Drake, himself a victim of Obama’s crusade against whistleblowers, told me, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system, where political gain is now incentive for leaking and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution.”

The Obama administration has charged more people (six) under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. (Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history, one being Daniel Ellsberg, of Nixon-era Pentagon Papers fame.) The most recent Espionage Act case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, charged for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists about the horrors of waterboarding. Meanwhile, his evil twin, former CIA officer Jose Rodriguez, has a best-selling book out bragging about the success of waterboarding and his own hand in the dirty work.

 

[Cuddles]

The hypocritical dems seem to have memory problems. If this was during Obama's Presidency, the whistleblower would be indicted by now.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones/

Obama’s War on Whistleblowers

White is black and down is up. Leaks that favor the president are shoveled out regardless of national security, while national security is twisted to pummel leaks that do not favor him. Watching their boss, bureaucrats act on their own, freelancing the punishment of whistleblowers, knowing their retaliatory actions will be condoned. The United States rains Hellfire missiles down on its enemies, with the president alone sitting in judgment of who will live and who will die by his hand.

The issue of whether the White House leaked information to support the president’s reelection while crushing whistleblower leaks it disfavors shouldn’t be seen as just another O’Reilly v. Maddow sporting event. What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.

The Obama administration has been cruelly and unusually punishing in its use of the 1917 Espionage Act to stomp on governmental leakers, truth-tellers, and whistleblowers whose disclosures do not support the president’s political ambitions. As Thomas Drake, himself a victim of Obama’s crusade against whistleblowers, told me, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system, where political gain is now incentive for leaking and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution.”

The Obama administration has charged more people (six) under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. (Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history, one being Daniel Ellsberg, of Nixon-era Pentagon Papers fame.) The most recent Espionage Act case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, charged for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists about the horrors of waterboarding. Meanwhile, his evil twin, former CIA officer Jose Rodriguez, has a best-selling book out bragging about the success of waterboarding and his own hand in the dirty work.

bbbbbut what about Obama?

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

bbbbbut what about Obama?

Obama is an interesting case study. He provided no value add as President other than some entertainment with his feel good speeches for Liberals.

Liberals use Obama on issues when they perceive they can fool people into believing a Democrat accomplished anything positive within the last couple of decades. When Conservatives use Obama, it is to highlight the fact the most Worshipped Democrat by the media actually accomplished nothing. Nothing meaningful, anyway.

In another example, Pelosi is currently held in high regard in the media and posters in this forum, but what has Pelosi actually accomplished? How about Hilary for that matter? Biden? Warren? Career politicians and attorneys tend to make crappy political leaders as we have seen.

Trump in comparison, has seen economic and stock market performance in record territory during his administration, from all time unemployment lows for blacks, longest post World War II economic expansion, and one of the longest periods of time where the SP500 was within 5% of its all time high. Those with investments, including the Middle Class with their retirement accounts have benefitted nicely. Under Obama, they were lucky to get back to even after eight years even with QE 1, QE 2, TARP, a $750 Billion economic stimulus plan, record low interest rates, Fed balance sheet expansion of several trillion dollars, and Cash for Clunkers.

As a reminder, Obama Administration’s corruption may have even exceeded the Bush Administration. What’s that, no convictions? The FBI was compromised starting from the Bush Administration and this is what protects The Swamp to this day. Yes, Bush Republicans and most Democrats are part of The Swamp. Trump is an outsider. Who else is there who would even attempt to address to rampant corruption in Washington?

Figure it out. When you do, you will join a group of people who on average are more successful and happier than the typical modern day Liberal.

 

[UsualName]

Obama is an interesting case study. He provided no value add as President other than some entertainment with his feel good speeches for Liberals.

Liberals use Obama on issues when they perceive they can fool people into believing a Democrat accomplished anything positive within the last couple of decades. When Conservatives use Obama, it is to highlight the fact the most Worshipped Democrat by the media actually accomplished nothing. Nothing meaningful, anyway.

In another example, Pelosi is currently held in high regard in the media and posters in this forum, but what has Pelosi actually accomplished? How about Hilary for that matter? Biden? Warren? Career politicians and attorneys tend to make crappy political leaders as we have seen.

Trump in comparison, has seen economic and stock market performance in record territory during his administration, from all time unemployment lows for blacks, longest post World War II economic expansion, and one of the longest periods of time where the SP500 was within 5% of its all time high. Those with investments, including the Middle Class with their retirement accounts have benefitted nicely. Under Obama, they were lucky to get back to even after eight years even with QE 1, QE 2, TARP, a $750 Billion economic stimulus plan, record low interest rates, Fed balance sheet expansion of several trillion dollars, and Cash for Clunkers.

As a reminder, Obama Administration’s corruption may have even exceeded the Bush Administration. What’s that, no convictions? The FBI was compromised starting from the Bush Administration and this is what protects The Swamp to this day. Yes, Bush Republicans and most Democrats are part of The Swamp. Trump is an outsider. Who else is there who would even attempt to address to rampant corruption in Washington?

Figure it out. When you do, you will join a group of people who on average are more successful and happier than the typical modern day Liberal.

You’re crazy. Obama got the largest healthcare bill law into effect since Medicare, the deficit was cut in half by $600 billion, Dodd Frank, ARRA, stock market doubled, unemployment cut by more than half.

Obama was a good President. A-/B+.

Trump is living off of the Obama years. He has passed almost no significant legislation and has upended our national security and alliances. He has nearly doubled the deficit with nothing to show for it but stock buy backs.

This economy is a sham. Anyone who judges an economy based on the stock market doesn’t understand economics.

 

[Cuddles]

Obama is an interesting case study. He provided no value add as President other than some entertainment with his feel good speeches for Liberals.

Liberals use Obama on issues when they perceive they can fool people into believing a Democrat accomplished anything positive within the last couple of decades. When Conservatives use Obama, it is to highlight the fact the most Worshipped Democrat by the media actually accomplished nothing. Nothing meaningful, anyway.

In another example, Pelosi is currently held in high regard in the media and posters in this forum, but what has Pelosi actually accomplished? How about Hilary for that matter? Biden? Warren? Career politicians and attorneys tend to make crappy political leaders as we have seen.

Trump in comparison, has seen economic and stock market performance in record territory during his administration, from all time unemployment lows for blacks, longest post World War II economic expansion, and one of the longest periods of time where the SP500 was within 5% of its all time high. Those with investments, including the Middle Class with their retirement accounts have benefitted nicely. Under Obama, they were lucky to get back to even after eight years even with QE 1, QE 2, TARP, a $750 Billion economic stimulus plan, record low interest rates, Fed balance sheet expansion of several trillion dollars, and Cash for Clunkers.

As a reminder, Obama Administration’s corruption may have even exceeded the Bush Administration. What’s that, no convictions? The FBI was compromised starting from the Bush Administration and this is what protects The Swamp to this day. Yes, Bush Republicans and most Democrats are part of The Swamp. Trump is an outsider. Who else is there who would even attempt to address to rampant corruption in Washington?

Figure it out. When you do, you will join a group of people who on average are more successful and happier than the typical modern day Liberal.

summary: black man bad

 

[Bugenhagen]

I actually had to look blazes up and spilled my Doritos while doing so, so to speak.

Speaking of event horizons, with improvements in camera sensor technology and the use of fast telescopes with Lucky Imaging where videos of planets or even the brighter deep sky objects are used, optical telescopes on Earth are increasingly able to approach their Rayleigh Criterion resolution limits through less than perfect seeing conditions.

The above developments seems to make my idea of using a dedicated narrow pass filter in front my relatively inexpensive 4 or 7 500 mm or so (depending on wavelength to be imaged) high f-ratio, single lens refractors obsolete. The narrow pass filter would eliminate chromatic aberration, but a shorter f-ratio refractor would still have other serious optical issues. As imaging times increase through using higher f-ratios, the signal to noise ratio decreases as well as the ability to Lucky Image, especially on dim deep sky objects. The cost of buying fully corrected, 4 lens 500 mm custom built refractors is currently way beyond my budget. Although the “mass produced” 127mm APO refractors are more affordable at about $10k per pop, one of my other goals of being able to stitch together multiple images of smaller parts of a deep sky object together into a higher resolution mosaic would not be met. My ultimate goal is to create images that have a breathtaking “3d” effect through high resolution data and exceptional image processing skills. For all the images by the Hubble and larger telescopes, very few images have reached their maximum possible visual impact in my mind. Perhaps I could visit one of the new 30 meter observatories in Chile in 2025, when they are expected to be completed.

I wonder if the techniques I learn in signal processing could be utilized in short term trading? Grin.

So how are things going with your new telescope?

Yeah.. I think I need a shot from the "Ballantines space glass" after reading that jumble. Join this group and you probably have all the array you need.

http://www.openspaceagency.com/

 

[Bugenhagen]

So even Kellyanne can't swallow this one.

Kellyanne Conway says 'I don't know' if Trump held up Ukraine military aid

Washington (CNN)White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said Sunday that she does not know if President Donald Trump withheld US military aid to Ukraine, but stood by the White House's response that there was no quid pro quo between Trump and the country's president.

Her comments come after the House passed an impeachment resolution outlining procedures moving forward in its impeachment inquiry into the President centered on the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A whistleblower complaint alleges the President pushed Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden in Ukraine. Trump has denied any wrongdoing
Conway told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" Sunday there was "no quid pro quo in this call in terms of the President" when asked about the foreign aid.
"President Trump never said to the Ukrainian President 'do this and you'll get your aid.' It is simply not here," she said.
But when pressed on what happened after the July call between Trump and Zelensky, and if she felt confident there was no quid pro quo, Conway said she did not know.
"So you feel totally confident that at the core of this, at the heart of this, there was no quid pro quo?" Bash asked.
"I feel confident about the fact that Ukraine has that aid and using it right now. That is because of this President that they have it. The last President ...," Conway said.
"Kellyanne, you very notably won't say, 'yes or no,' Bash interjected.
"It doesn't ..." Conway said
"Quid pro quo, yes or no?" Bash asked.
"I just said to you. I don't know whether aid was being held up and for how long," Conway said. "I know there were two Senators, a Democrat and Republican who called over to Ukraine and inquired about the aid."

Andrew Bates, spokesman for Biden, said on Sunday the Trump administration is "melting down."

"In an extraordinary development, even the Trump adviser who coined the term 'alternative facts' is unwilling to say that Donald Trump didn't subvert American national security with a quid pro quo that would force a foreign country to lie about the candidate who's beaten him in over 70 polls," he said in a statement to CNN.

"The White House has already admitted that Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to spread this vile, universally-debunked conspiracy theory. And the lead White House Ukraine expert, a decorated Iraq veteran, has now testified that military assistance was delayed in an attempt to force Ukraine to become an involuntary arm of the struggling Trump re-election campaign. Donald Trump's administration is melting down because of the lengths to which he'd go not to face Joe Biden next year."