snafu

One phoney baloney testifying before an entire chamber of dogs and ponies.

I wonder what the American Bar Association's and the ACLU's reactions will be (soft-worded finger wag at best). How many clients does Michael Cohen have that would have triggered a Mueller referral? I get that there are procedures in place, and I get that these procedures were likely followed, but talk about a bad precedent. Anyone who who hates Trump and is crowing today should remember that the karma wheel comes around, and this weapon (if upheld) could and will some day be used against anyone. Recrimination is a B word. This smacks of an attack on the President, and it diminishes the office of the President no matter how odeous the officeholder is. The lack of restraint is remarkable, and this looks 100% like a fishing expedition against someone who is unliked because he's an ass. While it is indisputable that the President is an ass, it is not a reason to target him. It also isn't justifiable to continually try to take down an office-holder just because he doesn't share a progressive platform. The only thing that would get me to review my opinion that this is fishing for Trump is if the warrant listed individual clients, specific communications and actual files of clients of Cohen not named Donald Trump. Even so, attorney-client privilege is one of the most sacrosanct protections (husband/wife, Doctor/patient, clergy, attorney/client) against side-door entries by prosecutors. Even if Cohen's files are vetted into "privileged" and "not privileged", there's still a team of people reviewing communications that they've got no right to review. Otherwise, this is a sad, disappointing, day.

Yeah, just roll a big rock over the opening to the hole.

I'm not going to attempt # of games in each series. Just picking winners in the NHL playoffs is tough enough. Tampa Bay over New Jersey. I think the Devils are pretty good, but not good enough. Columbus over the Capitals. Bruins over the Maple Leafs. This one will be fun to watch. Can't pick Toronto until after they've won a series. Penguins over the Flyers because the Penguins know what it takes at this point. Nashville over Colorado. Nashville is pretty good and Colorado isn't in their class. Minnesota over Winnipeg (same reason as for the Leafs), though I can easily see the Jets winning this series and another. Kings over the Golden Knights. Vegas' magic ends in the first round. Sharks over Ducks.

Congressional approval rating is 14%. And I'd be willing to bet that the reasons have nothing to do with people feeling as though they're under-served. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html Heck, Trump's approval rating among Democrats is arguably within hailing distance of that number (9%). http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx I doubt the OP will be getting a lot of support around the country in favor of making Congress larger. And for him to think that the extra members of Congress wouldn't be the product of party machines, and therefore partisan, is a total pipe dream.

Yes but what team are you rooting for?

But only in a nursery school. Mine: I'm the only one who can stop the robots when they come for us all.

Could be the French? https://www.rt.com/news/418707-macron-syria-chemical-strike/

Even if the dots can be connected directly to any of these individuals you name, I just don't see any of them getting prosecuted. McCabe at FBI and Ohr at Judiciary is my guess about the highest the charges reach, even if they could go higher. Anyhow, if I had one of those $1,000 tickets to one of Comey's read-alongs, I'd like to ask him a ton of questions. I'm not going to waste my time or money, though, because I wouldn't get fair answers to my fair questions. That's how I feel about Comey and his self-serving book.

Yes, it would be a big risk (if there was an attack perpetrated by Assad or his proxies). But now that it looks like there's no more serious threat of rebel activity and Assad is solidifying his resurgence with Russia's support, I wouldn't put it past Assad to discount the resolve of the US repeating a response. And, honestly, the last US response was to fire a few missiles at an airfield. Then again, reading the article, if it wasn't Assad, then maybe his claim that these attacks are "staged" is a last-ditch effort for the rebels to get the US to re-engage. So there's another possible explanation (the unlikely event that Assad's story is true). I honestly have no idea. Just trying to figure out explanations that might be possible.

Or, maybe the Syrians saw us getting out soon and figured we aren't going to pull a 180 and jump back in. It could be that this is an emboldened Assad punishing what's left of what he considers to be rebels who tried and failed. He's used chemical weapons before, and this explanation could also (for Assad) be viewed as acting rationally toward his ends. That's also a notion to be considered. I'm not discounting one or the other.

Agreed. This is why China needs to expand its trade, its acquisition of natural resources, and push past its borders in an aggressive way. There are too many people in China who need to be employed and fed. The huge population shift from the Chinese boondocks to their cities aggravates the pressure to keep their economy chugging along. They're either going to create an international conflict (intentionally or unintentionally), or some day their economy will eventually collapse. Either way, it won't be pretty.

Only during meals. Mine: able to predict baseball scores.

Row-33 does it in Canadien. Needs to be translated and then decoded.

Sinclair, obviously.

Theyre holding the fish before they're dismembered, and then you substitute penguins because you eat the fish while admiring your work?

But it's only good when the New York Times does it. Because they don't do it so much. Only other than for the most part. Every other news outlet sucks. Geez, follow along.

Youre 29 minutes behind the curve.

Was that a handsome female, or a pretty boy?

Yeah, I agree that the prior administration set a pretty bad precedent.

It's a disgrace now -- just like it was a disgrace then. No administration should be proud of that one.

I wasn't trying to play gotcha with TPS, I was asking a question. I'm not pretending to know anything (in this particular case).

Can you compare like that? Right now there are fewer jobs to offer because more people are employed than when Obama started his first term. For Trump's economy to create more jobs, there would probably be a need for more job openings -- from new or expanding businesses. And if that happens, then wouldn't that be a better measure to compare between the two administrations (if you were inclined to do so)?