snafu

Yup -- could happen. I should put a wacky theory in the "Not Crazy/Crazy" thread. Something like the day after the new Kentucky Governor gets sworn in, a big scandal against Mitch McConnell hits and he's removed form office and replaced by a Democrat (because D Gov). I know that wouldn't make his replacement the Speaker, but something like that would be a strange coincidence. But I don't wear tinfoil -- this is just speculation. It would be truly odd if there was violence in support of the President that the President/Federal Government has to suppress. There's a strong likelihood of political violence some day. This could be it. It might be the 2020 election results. Who knows. Personally, I don't think it will happen until after the economy turns to ***** again. People with jobs and food don't usually fight strictly for partisan reasons. Yeah, Schiff said something like: if we don't do this now then we're telling the American people that we are allowing the President to cheat on the elections AGAIN. What a shameless jerk. No collusion per Mueller. No collusion per Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

That was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news this morning. How awful is it that Congress can issue an Article for obstructing their investigation when they don't even follow their own rules.

Honestly, I think they're thinking that (1) they may lose some House seats but not the majority; and (2) they may pick up some Senate seats because they can play on the fact that Trump won't get convicted, and (3) some strange thing happens and the Senate convicts. And I don't think Pelosi is fully on board, but she's being pushed.

It was a bad idea then. It is a bad idea now. I don't think comparing whether the charges are frivolous or not is relevant. I will say that this "Obstruction of Congress" article is absolutely stupid. Schiff said what Trump is doing (regarding obstruction) in "unprecedented" but I recall a prior administration ignoring and blowing off Congressional subpoenas.. I also think that if the Democrats in Congress say that this is an "investigation" up until now, then they can't complain that the person they're investigating didn't HELP them. How stupid is that?? One of the "legal experts" said in his testimony last week that it isn't "obstruction" of anything until a Court requires Trump to produce evidence and witnesses. They were talking about why there are only two Articles. The reason is that Pelosi couldn't get support for more charges from her Democrat Members in districts that are on shaky ground for re-election. And don't you think that they would have tried emoluments, or Trump Foundation, or Russian hoax, or ANYTHING a lot earlier if they had anything to stick on him? As it is, these two Articles are weak. No reason to put more weak charges on top.

I’m through the Executive Summary. I’m getting old. That small font and double column was making my eyes blurry. I think Horowitz, in a most polite fashion, blasted the FBI for the way they handled the Page FISA from even the initial application. 17 errors and omissions. That’s a *****-ton. Ohr is screwed. Comey doesn’t come out smelling like an efficient FBI Director. I agree that that the headline “No Political Motivation” was probably true in August, 2016. And to be fair, Horowitz should also say: “but they so obviously hated Trump that personal motivation clouded their judgment in how they handled the investigation from day one”. And he could have said, politics probably crept in after we was elected. Seems to me that they could have shut down the investigation a lot earlier than they did. Seems to me that they bent and broke a lot of their own guidelines (a) before the election because it was important, and (b) later on — just because they didn’t like the November, 2016 election results. And they didn’t ever find any collusion, but they let this tumor of an investigation fester and grow. ?

It is still autumn, 2019. Call him wrong later this month if it turns out he is wrong.

The problems -- to me -- are in the renewals. Once the warrant needed to be renewed, they were already aware that the Steele report was worse than useless.

Saw that one coming.

No -- like I said, I didn't see it. I DON'T know that it leads with its conclusion. Should I stop reading it at that point? Isn't it, uh, 500 pages or so? Should I just wait for the NYT oped tomorrow?

I'm at work. Won't begin to read it until tonite.

I haven't had the chance to review the report yet. How many minutes ago was it released? Seems like you got to the nub of the conclusion pretty quickly.

What, actually, is your objection to people posting tweets? Many times they contain links to either news articles or to source documents. Very often, tweets contain information that NOT being reported by the media. Other times (like with memes), when they don't they're just reflective of a point or opinion that someone wants to make.

You got that right... If the White House flips in 2020 I am going to go on ebay and buy up all the Resistance paraphernalia because then it will be my turn. Here -- this is from 2017... https://www.bustle.com/p/9-literary-holiday-gifts-that-are-perfect-for-the-resistance-reader-on-your-list-7530025

Democrats all. She’s okay with them.

Humongous game now.

Oh that was SO CLOSE!!!

Yeah. Looks like Allen is holding the ball a lot.

Allen got hammered

Google that. Keep the results to yourself, please.

Am I the only Ted Cruz fan on this board?

What Schiff did is a variation on a theme. The defense of what many consider to be indefensible actions by “investigators” is always: “but Trump”.

Are these autographs current players? Or are you going to get a Jiri Dudacek?

You've got to wonder how many times Trump said “I’ve gotta free wang” in Oval Office meetings. Now he can’t explain it away so easily.

Bloomberg should have said “who explained to Booker what ‘trope’ means?”

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall correctly, this is the letter that set Horowitz off on his quest. It is from Grassley and Graham back in February, 2018. There are 36 questions (and questions within questions) that they wanted Horowitz to answer. Some doozies in this letter! And, the letter makes it pretty clear that the Committee already had some answers via classified material. I’m hoping that Horowitz lays out his report answer by answer — but I highly doubt he will. The letter is fascinating almost 2 years later. At a minimum, Ohr and Comey (and anyone else who laid their hands on the Page FISA renewals) should be cooked gooses. SHOULD and WILL is my main question. I still lean toward SHOULD, but WON’T. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/2018-02-28 CEG LG to DOJ OIG (referral).pdf