WHAT WE COULD REALLY USE RIGHT NOW...:

Next week we will begin to make public our statistical findings, showing how this sample of America's registered voters viewed the issues--and changed their views on the issues--after they got a chance to deliberate "under good conditions." But here are some things I learned during those four days that can't be fully captured by the numbers.

Ordinary Americans do not want to be as bitterly divided as their parties, political campaigns, and media are driving them to be. They are pained to the point of being traumatized by the current level of partisan polarization, and they are begging for relief. Reaching across all kinds of divides in Dallas--and not just in the group issue discussions but in deeply personal exchanges over dinner and drinks as well--they found some common ground. And they wanted to know why their politicians can't do so as well. A heavily tattooed older man from Colorado with a gray beard, long gray hair, and a tall cowboy hat, asked, "If 500 people can get together--from different ages, races, geographic regions, with conflicting opinions--why can't. . . .our Congress do that?"

Good conditions really do matter. Most of the small groups (which were about the size of a jury) spanned across America's partisan, ideological, racial, and other identity divides. But when they were able to sit together in a room and talk about issues as individuals, rather than as warring red and blue tribes, something changed. At least they came to understand where their fellow Americans were coming from. A retired schoolteacher from Mariposa County, California, told me: "It's become dangerous to express your view. But if you get people out of their places, with moderators and parameters. . . .[it's different.]" Said a middle-aged man from Wisconsin: "I didn't know who was a Democrat, who was a Republican, and who an independent. People just shared their views. That made it much easier to listen and have a respectful exchange."

Americans are fed up with the politics of personal destruction. Pretty soon into the experiment, it was clear to all of us that they just didn't want to hear it any more. The one time that a delegate went negative in the plenary--by alluding to Governor Mark Sanford's alibi of a hike on the Appalachian Trail to cover up his extramarital affair--his fellow delegates made their displeasure loudly known. "We've really liked the fact," said a woman from Ohio, that (save for that Sanford moment) "this hasn't focused on the personalities; its been about the issues. That breaks the norm."

Americans welcome a spirit of civility and bipartisanship. Over and over, people remarked to me about how refreshing it was to hear contending policy experts from different parties or ideological orientations discuss the issues in a friendly and mutually respectful way, without feeling compelled to always disagree, disparage, or destroy the other side. In fact, delegates were disarmed by the spirit of good will (and even occasional humor) that leavened the policy debate on taxes and the economy between Jared Bernstein (former economic policy advisor to Vice-President Biden) and Douglas Holtz-Eakin (former chief economic advisor to Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign), and by the significant common ground on foreign policy issues between former Obama White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and former George W. Bush national security staffer Kori Schake.

Ordinary people want to understand the issues better, and they appreciate balanced and accessible means to do so. Joyce, from Torrance, California, told me, "I'm leaving a changed person. I thought I was reasonably informed, but I wasn't. I heave learned so much about the issues that I didn't know. I will now follow them more closely."

People are ready to re-think their views in the face of fresh evidence. A young African American woman told me she had gravitated toward a more nuanced and gradual stance on the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $15. "When I took the first survey," she said, "I thought it was a great idea. But you learn it could really hurt small business."

Americans have not given up on their democracy, and their faith in it can be restored. As they were leaving last Sunday, many said they were honored to have been chosen for the exercise, and that it had restored their faith and pride in American democracy. One was Jackie, an elementary school teacher from Tennessee. "I'm coming away much more informed, energized, and proud to be part of this country," she said. "This made me realize, we all want the same things, to be safe and valued, to have this be a great country."

Everybody wants to be treated with respect. And this ethic--constantly nurtured and reinforced from beginning to end in Dallas--was vital to the success of America in One Room. Heather, from University City, Missouri, told me, "I have had the first civil conversation about politics that I have had in a very long time. Because on Facebook, they just call me names." Reggie, an African-American from the San Diego area, said of his small group, "We all listened to one another and respected their viewpoints. In the end, that's all anybody wants, to be heard and understood."

A LOVE DEFERRED:

Can you hear the cha-cha-cha in The Rolling Stones' "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"?
Or the mambo in Ray Charles' "What I'd Say"?
Or the Afro Cuban clave beat in "Bo Diddley" by Bo Diddley?

🔊 @altlatino examines the Cuban roots of rock 'n' roll. https://t.co/U0fkyZK4fm

— NPR (@NPR) September 28, 2019

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AN ADMISSION OF GUILT?:

The sources say the President is not upset with Mulvaney for the White House releasing the summary of his July 25 call with Ukraine's leader or the whistleblower complaint because he had been convinced that it was necessary.

What Trump and other aides are frustrated with, according to the sources, is that Mulvaney did not have a strategy for defending and explaining the contents of those documents as soon as they were publicly released.

TRYING TO SAVE HIS OWN SKIN:

When Barr did learn of that call a few weeks later, he was "surprised and angry" to discover he had been lumped in with Giuliani, a person familiar with Barr's thinking told The Associated Press. This person was not authorized to speak about the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:

There is a kind of karmic hilarity to the fact that in order to protect Trump, his staff centralized the materials that could doom him in a highly classified system that can't be erased or manipulated without a record of access by a very small number of people.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) September 28, 2019

HEY, SOMEONE HAS TO PROGRAM JOHN SOLOMON::

In the months before the steps taken in March on the politically explosive investigations sought by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani had met at least twice with the man who would become a central figure in his efforts and a target of criticism in both countries: Mr. Lutsenko, 54, Ukraine's top prosecutor.

First at a meeting in New York and later in Warsaw, Mr. Giuliani pushed Mr. Lutsenko for information about -- and investigations into -- a pair of cases of keen interest to his client.

They included the Bidens' activities in Ukraine and the release during the 2016 campaign of incriminating records about Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's campaign chairman. Mr. Giuliani said early this year he had become increasingly convinced that the Manafort records were doctored and disseminated by critics of Mr. Trump to sabotage his campaign, and later used to spur the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

No evidence supports this idea and Mr. Manafort's own retroactive filings under the Foreign Agent Registration Act corroborated the Ukrainian documents, which also matched financial records in the United States.

Still, it was not long before Mr. Trump, sensitive to any questions about the legitimacy of his 2016 victory, began echoing Mr. Giuliani's language about what they viewed as the Ukrainian origins of the Russia investigation.

But Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani had also taken a growing interest in the role played by Mr. Biden, as vice president, in the dismissal of a previous Ukrainian prosecutor who had oversight of investigations into an oligarch who had served in a previous Ukrainian government and whose company had employed Hunter Biden. No evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the dismissal of that prosecutor, whose ouster was being sought by other Western governments and institutions concerned about corruption in the Ukrainian government.

In their first meeting, in January, Mr. Lutsenko later told people, Mr. Giuliani called Mr. Trump and excitedly briefed him on the discussions. And once Mr. Lutsenko's office took procedural steps to advance investigations involving the Manafort records and the oligarch linked to Hunter Biden, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump and their allies aggressively promoted stories about the developments to conservative journalists at home, further turning a foreign government's action to the president's advantage.

"As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges," Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter in March, echoing the headline of one of the first such pieces by a Trump-friendly journalist.

IT'S ONLY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!:

[H]ere's where Friday night's Washington Post story perhaps magnifies the Ukraine scandal: The report, by Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Ellen Nakashima, alleges that there is a memorandum summarizing the White House meeting  on May 10, 2017, between Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a meeting at which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a foreign agent, and at which he also told Lavrov and Kislyak  that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the previous day had relieved "great pressure" on him.

The Post goes on to note that "it is not clear whether a memo documenting the May 10, 2017, meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak was placed into that system, but the three former officials said it was restricted to a very small number of people." Here's the problem: That May 10 2017 White House meeting was the subject of intense scrutiny by the Mueller probe, because it went directly to the question of why Comey was fired. Page 71 of the second volume of the Mueller Report notes that "In the morning on May 10, 2017, President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office." The footnote cites to a White House Document entitled "Working Visit with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia" which is dated 5/9/17, the day before the meeting, and to an email (5/9/17 White House Document, "Working Visit with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia"); SCR08_001274 (5/10/17 Email, Ciaramella to Kelly et al.).  That's the only document that seems to have been produced in reference to the May 10 meeting. There is confirmation of Trump's remarks about Comey's firing being a relief from Sean Spicer and Hope Hicks.

That's it. The May 10 meeting is supported by an email. Now the question becomes, if there was a memorandum of that meeting, how is it possible that it was not produced to Mueller?

THEY'LL HAVE THE TEAM T-SHIRTS PRINTED BY NIGHTFALL:

THE RED HAT IS THE RED FLAG:

The former New Jersey police chief caught on recordings making hateful remarks against African Americans once shared his thoughts about the 2016 election while discussing the arrest of a black suspect.

"I'm telling you, you know what, Donald Trump is the last hope for white people, cause Hillary will give it to all the minorities to get a vote," former Bordentown Township Chief Frank Nucera said, according to a transcript displayed at trial. "That's the truth! I'm telling you."

Nucera's federal trial on charges of hate crime assault and lying to the FBI entered its third day Wednesday with more testimony from the police K-9 sergeant who made dozens of recordings of his former chief.

ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:

I received a note from my old friend Larry Shackley, a longtime NR reader and a great admirer of P. G. Wodehouse. In fact, Larry is reading through the complete Wodehouse -- complete -- right now. He came across this statement from the writer in 1956. It sounds awfully present-day, doesn't it?

"Humorists have been scared out of the business by the touchiness now prevailing in every section of the community. Wherever you look, on every shoulder there is a chip, in every eye a cold glitter warning you, if you know what is good for you, not to start anything."

WHEN gOD OUTGREW yAHWEH:

In a small Jerusalem study bursting with books, an affable professor, cap on his head and white beard covering much of his face, has found the formula to end a centuries-old controversy. If he's right, history books will require rewriting and sermons in churches around the world will have to be rethought. "It will have far-reaching implications for relations between Jews and Christians," Israel Knohl tells me when we meet in his office at the Shalom Hartman Institute, in Jerusalem's German Colony neighborhood.

Bible scholar Knohl, 67, specializes in finding unconventional explanations for fateful issues and has no compunctions about angering his colleagues along the way. Earlier studies by the religiously observant holder of the Yehezkel Kaufmann Chair in Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have sparked furious debate, transcending the confines of academia. This time, the subject is more highly charged than ever: the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. [...]

Jesus' trial and crucifixion, he maintains, constitute a "dramatic and decisive moment" in the history of the Jewish people and of Western culture as a whole. It is the moment at which the two approaches - the anti-messianic and the messianic - meet in an unavoidable collision, whose impact is still felt today.

Jesus was apparently born and raised in Nazareth. His name (Yeshua or Yeshu, in Hebrew) signified the anticipation of yeshua, salvation or redemption. As a young man, he was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, who similarly immersed thousands of people who flocked to him in order to confess their sins, repent and be purified. The New Testament relates that during his baptism, Jesus heard a voice saying, "Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased," and the holy spirit descended on him like a dove.

Subsequently, in a Nazareth synagogue on the Sabbath, Jesus recites verses from the Book of Isaiah that begin, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me," and tells the worshippers, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:18-21). According to Knohl, in his deeds, Jesus "continued the messianic biblical tradition" and supported his words with references from the Hebrew Bible about the image of the Messiah.

Afterward, in Jerusalem on Passover, Jesus enters the Temple courtyard, chases away the buyers and sellers and the peddlers of doves (which were used for sacrifices), and overturns the tables of the money changers. This is an affront to ritual, which causes a tumult in the Temple and infuriates the priests.

Why was he not arrested immediately after this act?

Knohl: "Many among the Jewish people hoped he would prove himself to be the Messiah, who would redeem the people and restore its freedom. He enjoyed great public sympathy. The people were fond of him, cheered him on, supported and protected him."

Thus Jesus was able to return to the Temple courtyard on a later occasion and to speak publicly. His principal argument was extreme: The Messiah, whose advent the people awaited, is not a descendant of David, as everyone believed until then. As such, Jesus solved the problem of his own lineage, as one who was not descended from the House of David and was a pretender to the messianic crown. In addition, he presented a new model of the Messiah: Whereas the disciples who followed him clung to the prevailing belief in a triumphant warrior Messiah and expected him to deliver the people from Roman rule, Jesus saw himself as a suffering, nonviolent, poor and weak Messiah.

This position would seem to be at odds with the general approach found in the Hebrew Bible, according to which God is above suffering, which is solely a human attribute. According to that description, it follows that if the Messiah is a quasi-divine figure, it wasn't possible for him to suffer, as Jesus claimed. However, Knohl looked for and found evidence of divine suffering in other sources, and explains that, "The portrait of the divinity suffering with his people appeared in Jewish tradition before the birth of Christianity."

In support of this thesis, the scholar cites Isaiah 63:9: "In all their afflictions he was afflicted." The Hebrew text emends the word lo [spelled lamed aleph, meaning "not"] to lo [lamed vav, meaning "to him"], which is very significant in this context. According to the emended version - whose date is unknown - God is regretful, and shares in Israel's suffering. For the first time, the image of a suffering God enters the Bible, a concept previously foreign to the biblical way of thought.

OXYMORONIC:

ONE OF THE GREAT PERVERSITIES in American politics today is that we see Christian leaders taking their cues from Donald Trump, rather than the other way around.

And the perfect example of this inversion--the archetype of the Trumpian-Christian--is Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Unlike his late father, Jerry Falwell Sr., who founded Liberty University in 1971 and the Moral Majority in 1979, the junior Falwell is not a reverend. His background is in real estate development. But because of his famous name and his perch at the top of a large and prominent Baptist-founded college, his support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries was seen as a key turning point in the campaign. It came at a time when Texas Senator Ted Cruz had been expecting Falwell's endorsement and when Cruz seemed to be emerging as the consensus candidate for conservative Christians.

Falwell, of course, has been steadfast in his devotion to the president ever since. Trump accepted an invitation to speak at Liberty's commencement ceremony in May of 2017. And the intervening months have made one thing clear: mingling with Christians makes no impression whatsoever on Trump. But Trump seems to have become a role model for his Christian admirers. You can see the dynamic play out in an uncanny way in Falwell's recent life and times.

These times have lately brought some unusual tribulations. The roots of the current troubles go back to 2012, when Falwell and his wife Becki met a "pool boy" at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Florida. They struck up some sort of relationship with him. They decided to back him in a real estate investment involving a "gay-friendly" Miami hostel, which also involved their son Trey, who was then twenty-three. Eventually there was a lawsuit over the financing of the hostel. As several news outlets later reported, there were supposedly racy photos of Becki Falwell circulating that may have been used as leverage in the legal battles. (Falwell has denied the existence of compromising photos "of me," but in June reporters at the Miami Herald said they had seen three photographs, adding: "They are images not of Falwell, but of his wife in various stages of undress.")

One of the earliest probes into the Florida real estate deals was written in August of 2017 for Politico Magazine by Brandon Ambrosino, a graduate of Liberty University. Ambrosino has cultivated sources at Liberty who are displeased with Falwell's leadership. Earlier this month, Ambrosino returned to Politico with a follow-up investigation into the way Falwell runs Liberty University. He detailed "how Falwell presides over a culture of self-dealing, directing university resources into projects and real estate deals in which his friends and family have stood to make personal financial gains." He included new revelations about "Falwell's decision to hire his son Trey's company to manage a shopping center owned by the university, Falwell's advocacy for loans given by the university to his friends, and Falwell's awarding university contracts to businesses owned by his friends."

And to make matters worse, Reuters reported in August that Falwell had also made a sweetheart real estate deal with a young "personal trainer" the Falwells had been working out with. Falwell agreed to sell an eighteen-acre sports facility owned by Liberty to the trainer, a Liberty grad, and then financed the deal so that the trainer didn't have to put up his own money.

As such reports received national press attention, you could watch Falwell's reaction and almost see the thought bubble above his head: "What would Donald do?"

...AND CHEAPER...:

Backers of nuclear fusion believe it is the fuel source of the future as it basically turns hydrogen in sea water into usable electricity - with no radioactive waste and no emissions. Last night Boris Johnson announced the Government will fund the world's first nuclear fusion plant. The £220m investment will build on work already being done in Britain - the country houses the world's largest nuclear fusion research experiment, in Culham, Oxfordshire and Mr Johnson visited the facility within days of taking office.

Many feared lack of investment meant the USA and South Korea were leaving Britain in their technological wake.

Whoever successfully scales up nuclear fusion could licence the technology across the globe as the new power source will be worth billions.

Mr Johnson has pledged to pump an initial £220million into the project and the Government hopes to build the world's first nuclear fusion plant by 2040.

Fusion power utilises the technology used in the hydrogen bomb and aims to squeeze hydrogen atoms together to make helium, which creates vast amounts of energy.

HE'S BILL, NOT DICK:

The most damning evidence came from the president himself. It centers around a phone call with the president of Ukraine in which Trump raises the issue of investigating the son of presidential hopeful Joe Biden, and the implication of Trump's words is clear as day. He asks for an investigation that would benefit him politically and has nothing to do with legitimate U.S. interests, and he brings it up repeatedly, including immediately upon the Ukrainian president mentioning the need for U.S. security aid.

This is an impeachable offense. Republicans spent Wednesday arguing there was no explicit quid pro quo, but there is seemingly no line the president can cross that would inspire them to put the public good ahead of politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, joined by the entirety of Connecticut's congressional delegation, has called for impeachment proceedings, and that process must now begin in earnest.

The proper next step for the president is clear. He should resign. He has repeatedly proven himself unfit for office and appears to view the presidency as a position meant to benefit himself personally, not as one that must represent the interests of an entire nation.

REPLACED:

The album's final mix -- not of Wallace's doing -- was tailored to the sonic flavor of the day for radio purposes. It sounded dated even by the time 1999 rolled around.

Turns out, though, that wasn't the final mix, and now the producer gets the final say.

Enter Dead Man's Pop, a new four-disc Replacements box set from Rhino/Warner Bros. Records. If not a full-blown makeover of Don't Tell a Soul, the new expanded collection -- which hits stores Friday in vinyl and CD format -- at least feels like a do-over, and a worthy one at that.

"Producing that record was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me," said Wallace, whose other production credits include albums by Faith No More, the Monkees, Maroon 5 and 14 Songs, Westerberg's 1993 solo debut.

"Obviously, I'm thrilled to finally get this one right."

Named after a line Westerberg said in an interview about his brand of melodic, Beatles/Big Star-style guitar pop being out of vogue in 1989, Dead Man's Pop features a two-disc live set from the Don't Tell a Soul tour and one disc of outtakes. The latter disc includes nine tracks from a famously disastrous -- but not entirely fruitless -- 10-day recording session in Bearsville, N.Y., plus a drunken six-song Los Angeles session with 'Mats admirer Tom Waits. (Really more like three songs and three tracks' worth of revelry, but whatever.)

The centerpiece of the new collection, though, is the earlier, rawer version of Don't Tell a Soul that Wallace mixed himself at then-new Paisley Park Studios back in 1988 before handing the album off to Warner Bros.

Replacements biographer Bob Mehr, who coproduced the new box set, succinctly summed up Wallace's original mix this way: "Whether or not it's the better version of the album, it's the one that sounds more like the Replacements."

IT'S NOT AS IF THE TRUMPBOTS HAVE ANY FACTS ON THEIR SIDE:

The Carlson-Smith is a reminiscent of a spat between Smith and Hannity that stemmed from the news anchor telling Time magazine in March 2018 that "they don't really have rules on the opinion side," which he said exists to be "entertaining." In response, Hannity tweeted, "While Shep is a friend with political views I do not share, and great at breaking news, he is clueless about what we do every day." Ingraham also chimed in, calling Smith's comments "inconsiderate & inaccurate."

There's always been a gap between the network's news and opinion wings, but people who appear on Fox News tell THR that the chasm has recently been growing.

A television news executive who closely watches the company agreed, saying that the gap "is definitely getting wider." This person added, "I think it's gotten much more difficult for the actual journalists to operate under the legacy explanation of news plus opinion."

Carl Cameron, who spent 20 years at Fox News and left as the network's chief political correspondent, said he used to take the brunt of the opinion wing. "I was routinely roughed up by the primetime hosts," he said. "It was clear that the entertainment side was at odds with the news department only if you lived in the middle of it."

In a conversation Friday, Cameron took issue with Carlson's commentary about Smith and Andrew Napolitano, and also expressed reservations about the combative way left-leaning Fox News contributor Juan Williams was treated by his fellow panelists on The Five this week after he suggested that they had read White House talking points about Ukraine.

"I don't think anybody would object to having a disagreement, but that type of behavior is kind of thuggish," he said. "Haven't we had enough of that? It's not necessary."

GETTING RID OF DONALD WAS THE SOLE JUSTIFICATION FOR JOE:

Washington Free Beacon founding editor Matthew Continetti said on Friday that House Democrats are willing to offer former Vice President Joe Biden as a "sacrificial lamb" in their push to mark President Donald Trump with "the asterisk of impeachment."

MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE:

NEIN VOLK:

The US President's special representative for Ukraine has reportedly resigned from his posting.

CNN understands Kurt Volker walked away from the role after he was named in a whistleblower complaint surround Donald Trump's correspondence with the Ukrainian president.

EXTREMELY ON-BRAND:

A military official formerly in charge of all White House communications for the U.S. Army at Mar-a-Lago was sentenced to three years of probation on Friday after he made false statements to a federal agent during a child pornography investigation.

Richard Ciccarella -- a non-commissioned officer who told federal agents he was in charge of communications at President Donald Trump's Palm Beach resort -- became a target of an investigation after he uploaded photos of a young girl to a seedy Russian website between 2017 and 2018, according to court documents.

HECK, IF IT WAS TIME DEPENDENT, WHY NOT THIS ONE...:

At the end of 1944, The Manchester Union (a predecessor of today's New Hampshire Union Leader, albeit with a different owner and editorial perspective) noted that New Hampshire was the last state in the country without a motto. The newspaper sponsored a public, statewide contest to solicit potential mottos. Under the terms of the contest, a panel of judges convened by the newspaper would review the entries, choosing one that would be forwarded to the New Hampshire Legislature, where it would be considered for adoption.

Public response to the contest was enormous. More than 1,500 people submitted some 3,500 entries. It took the committee of judges months to review the entries, and in late April 1945, the committee made its recommendation.

The winner was "Strong and Steadfast as the Granite Hills," proposed by a then well-known writer from Gilmanton, Curtis Hidden Page.

A special Joint Committee of the House and Senate recommended "Strong and Steadfast as the Granite Hills," relying on simple but persuasive logic. "Foremost in our minds was that New Hampshire is known as the Granite State," said state Sen. R. Robert Matheson, of Goffstown, the committee's chairman, in his remarks in support of Page's submission. "Her chief attribute is everlastingly set upon a firm, strong and steadfast foundation, her everlasting hills."

The state Senate approved Page's motto on Wednesday, April 25, 1945.

While adoption of a state motto was front-page news then, far more important events were taking place, across the Atlantic Ocean on the battlefields of World War II. "Reds Ring Berlin, Cross Elbe: Fantastic Battle Rages in Reich Capital; Hitler May Be Caught in Trap" read the headline of The Manchester Union on April 26, 1945.

Other stories that day suggested the War in Europe would soon be over: "VE Day To Be Proclaimed by Allied Chiefs of State." Another story reported that Italian dictator Benito Mussolini had fled his villa east of Milan, telling his staff the war was lost. Equally important was the headline heralding President Harry Truman's address to delegates charged with creating the charter for the United Nations, in which he encouraged them to be "architects for a better world."

These were dramatic and historic days for anyone engaged in the fight against totalitarianism and fascism. Just five years earlier, Hitler had begun his assault of Great Britain. On the day of the New Hampshire Senate's motto vote, Hitler's empire and its twisted political philosophy based on racial, religious and ethnic identity were nearing defeat. Allied victory seemed certain, but it came at a terrible cost. On the same day of its story about the Senate vote, The Manchester Union reported that 1,244 New Hampshire men had died so far in World War II.

Not surprisingly, amid the motto debate, the historic events in Europe caught the attention of at least one elected official: State Sen. Earl Hewitt, of Enfield, asked if a different phrase, "Live Free or Die," had been considered as a motto.

Yes, responded Sen. Matheson, who nevertheless affirmed that "Strong and Steadfast" had the unanimous support of the Joint Committee.

A week later, on Wednesday, May 2, 1945, when the House met to consider the joint committee's motto, the finality of "Strong and Steadfast" as a state motto came unglued. Rep. J. Walker Wiggin, of Manchester, led a floor flight to replace "Strong and Steadfast as the Granite Hills" with "Live Free or Die." He spoke for 30 minutes and was followed by other representatives, who were supported by several patriotic organizations, including the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Context always matters in politics. At the same time as the motto debate unfolded in the House, the leading headlines in The Manchester Union reported news of earth-shaking consequences: "Berlin Falls, Soviets Report Hitler, Aides Took Own Lives" and "Axis Surrender Million Men to Allies."

While not officially over, World War II in Europe essentially ended the same day Rep. Wiggin launched the floor fight over the state's motto. If there was to be debate about "Live Free or Die" versus "Strong and Steadfast as the Granite Hills," it would not be based on the rational merits of each proposed motto. Instead it became an emotional vote, heavily influenced by the truly historic events occurring thousands of miles away.

Indeed, The Manchester Union knew the tide had turned in this debate. Its reporter noted that "...even though a lengthy list of speakers scheduled to argue the respective merits of the suggestions before the House was curtailed sharply as it became obvious that the Stark quotation, a late-comer ... would be approved."

Put simply, "Strong and Steadfast as the Granite Hills" stood no chance against a motto coined by an American Revolutionary hero that embraced freedom on the day Hitler was defeated.

HOBBY LOBBY:

DAN'S BADGE OF HONOR:

Three days after his now infamous phone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Donald Trump abruptly fired his director of national intelligence in favour of an inexperienced political loyalist.

According to a New York Times report, the White House learned within days that the unorthodox call on 25 July with Zelenskiy had raised red flags among intelligence professionals and was likely to trigger an official complaint.

That timeline has raised new questions over the timing of the Trump's dismissal by tweet of the director of national intelligence (DNI), Dan Coats, on 28 July and his insistence that the deputy DNI, Sue Gordon, a career intelligence professional, did not step into the role, even in an acting capacity.

Instead, Trump tried to install a Republican congressman, John Ratcliffe, who had minimal national security credentials but had been a fierce defender of the president in Congress.

ALWAYS BET ON THE dEEP sTATE:

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. 

IRON LADDY:

Margaret Thatcher loved Spitting Image as well, because she realised very quickly that their image of her as the best man in the cabinet [Thatcher was voiced by a man and portrayed shaving and using male urinals] was one to pursue. From then on, she deepened her voice, she wore dark suits - basically she conformed to the image that Spitting Image had broadcast. She was very pleased with it.

PRIDE OF THE TRUMPBOTS:

Separately, the Washington Post reported on Friday that in 2017, Trump told Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that he was not bothered by Moscow's meddling in the 2016 US elections because the US did the same in other countries.

Citing three former officials who requested anonymity, the Washington Post said the meeting was held just one day after Trump fired his FBI director James Comey, with the US president telling Lavrov and Kislyak that the sacking had relieved him of "great pressure".

THE RED HAT IS THE RED FLAG:

An expert on right-wing extremism has warned of "massive rearmament" by neo-Nazi groups after German police seized 61% per more weapons during raids on the radical right in 2018 than the previous year.

German public broadcaster ARD on Friday, citing Interior Ministry figures requested by the left-wing Linke Party, showed 1,091 weapons were seized during raids on far-right extremists last year. In 2017, 676 weapons were confiscated.

COUNTRY MORE THAN SEAT:

She just knew.

"The President of the United States," Sherrill wrote on Monday night in a separate statement that she posted on her Facebook page, "is threatening our national security."

Late Wednesday afternoon, I walked with her from her office to the Capitol, where we stood outside the doors to the floor of the House.

"It's so incredibly offensive," she said, "because we, in my mind, are not a democracy--we are the democracy. We have always protected democracies across the world. I don't have rose-colored glasses about some of the things the United States has done that have been bad for the world--but, my gosh, we've protected democracies from foreign influence. We've helped nations become democracies. And so, to have the president now try to use a foreign government to harm our democracy at home ..."

"It's just so beyond the pale," she continued when we got back to her office.

She likened the president's actions to those of the Mafia.

"To hear the president kind of shake down a foreign power, it's just egregious conduct," she said. "And so, the bright line, of course, is the fact that, in very basic terms, the president of the United States withheld congressionally directed military funding, illegally, from the foreign power, and then went to that foreign president and said, 'Could you do me a favor? Basically, look into this guy running against me.' That's the bright line."

She was sitting in the middle of the couch in her office, and I was sitting on a chair across from her with a coffee table between. On her shelves were her helicopter helmet and a doorstop of a history of the Navy and a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution given to her by a constituent, and I asked her whether she knew that her op-ed with the other "badasses and the guys," as she called the seven of them, was going to lead to ... all of this? To more and more Democrats voicing similar support? To the dam breaking, so to speak?

She was, at first, the calm, cautious controlled Sherrill I've become accustomed to.

"That wasn't part of the calculation," she started.

"But I think we suspected that our decision would have an impact," she added.

Here, though, after practically reflexively mentioning people's tax burdens and health care costs and the importance of the funding of tunnels and roads for the many commuters in her district, she found herself grappling with the breathtaking stakes of this now much larger fight. And for Sherrill, it became clearer and clearer as she kept talking, this is far from merely about checking the 45th president.

"It's critical for people to believe in our democracy," she said, "and to not feel like ... the whole thing is rigged."

This is when her chin started to quiver.

"I think it's incumbent upon me to be able to explain to our country why this is different and why we have to act.

"This is against everything we fought for in the military," she continued, "as somebody who invested in her country from the time I was 18 years old. Um, so I think we all knew we had to stand up for these values, but now we have to remind people in the country"--she stopped, trying to gather herself again, to little avail--"who don't seem to be coalescing around our values right now. We have to remind people that these aren't just kind of a set of, um, you know, these aren't just kind of things that somebody worked out on the back of an envelope in 1776. I mean, these are, these are things that a group of people who were deciding that they didn't want to operate under tyranny, a group of people who were deciding that they wanted to try this experiment, where individuals, um, could actually have a say in the government ..."

Sniffling, she kept talking. "I'm trying to talk through this," she said. "I hate that I'm getting emotional about it, but I just think that, um, we as Americans are--it's just there's a little bit of a lack of faith right now, and I think it's important that we remind people of the sacrifices that"--she paused again to try to settle her voice--"I think it's important that we remind people of the sacrifices that have been made for the Constitution and for what we believe in."

It feels, Sherrill said, like a "1776 kind of fight."