Taro T

Your continued stating a crime was committed does not make it so. The committing of a crime to obstruct the investigation into an accusation that has now been proven not to have occurred in 2-4 forums (whether you include the House and Senate investigations that were run under Republican leadership will effect whether you count them as 2 or 4 investigations) has been alleged but not proven.

The point he's being making which you seem to not be grasping is that because people (even orange ones) start out with a presumption of innocence when an investigator says there isn't enough evidence to suggest they are guilty of something, then they are (barring some new evidence coming out, and after a 2 year investigation which even had access to evidence collected by what certainly now appears to be illegal surveillance, how much new factual evidence could ever be found?) innocent. Which covers volume 1. If the investigator says crimes possibly were committed, then they may or may not have been. But without a trial where the defendant gets to present evidence that supports his case that he is innocent, all that is is an accusation. Guilt isn't proven merely by the accusation (at least in this country at least up through today), but through a hearing of all the evidence. And, where it seems you take exception, the Special Council's Boss, the Attorney General, looked at the evidence the SC came up with about possible obstruction of justice and decided there wasn't enough evidence to even bother with further proceedings. And considering several of even those potential examples of obstruction include thought crimes (well he wanted to fire Mueller, but he didn't) which aren't illegal in this country (at present) and as we now know (courtesy of Mr. Horowitz and Mr Mueller) that there wasn't a crime to be obstructing the investigation of; it seems rather flimsy to even say he isn't innocent of that as well. So, it seems the AG made the correct call on that. You seem to disagree with that. It isn't that those results break DR's way (and he's been consistent all along that he's interested in the truth) it's that those happen to break the way our legal system has been set up. Unless you are proven guilty, then you are innocent. And saying obstruction might have occurred is not the same as proving it has.

To not follow up on it, probably would have been dereliction of duty. To use it as a basis for multiple FISA warrants, certainly seems to be a far grosser dereliction of duty; especially as we now know that they had proof it was bogus by the time they requested the 1st renewal at the latest, and likely much sooner than that.

Except even the OP recognized that asking this thread to remain pristine (for lack of a better word) to only thoughts elicited from 1st hand reading of the FISA report by members of this community would have been better had he waited until after the 400+ page report had been out long enough for people to have actually read it. This thread would be very empty at present as almost all of us have day jobs and at best nobody has made it past the executive summary at present. (With DR a potential notable exception to having only read that far.)

Not positive that it is. If Tennessee wins, then 3 of the 4 teams the Bills needed to win this week to clinch will have done so. (The Bills being the sole holdout of the 4 sadly.) Unless beating Baltimore was crucial for tie breakers including common opponents, a single Bills win the last 3 weeks should clinch (again, assuming Tennessee holds on and Oakland loses). Because any win from here on out improves the conference record for the Bills.

Has to be some sort of 'this is NOT how Thanos destroyed the Infinity Stones' joke to be made in there somewhere.

So, at the very least, there is one accomplishment of Tulsi Gabbard that all Americans can endorse.

A few years back, a similar situation happened in NJ. The Dems just changed the rules and ended up with a different guy that wasn't supposed to be on the ballot winning.

He also has conveniently said that Sondlund said the quid pro quo was about both the meeting and the aid when Sonlund pretty explicitly said the quid pro quo he believed was there was about the meeting and not the aid money.

Pretty sure he worked through those a loooong time ago. He's been working on everybody else's since.

My kids will have graduated in the past 2 school years. They won't have a penny of debt due to scholarships, their own and my (and my wife's) resources. Why the **** should our costs not be reimbursed if you are forgiving other student loans?

No, no, no. He isn't a liar; he's a satirist. Just ask him. (Still think the ultimate plot twist would be to find out he's really Andy Kaufman. It would explain soooo much.)

1984 springs to mind. Though it would've been close.

Which also doesn't address why somebody who took loans out should end up with college for free when a lot of people paid for their or their kids' education end up being out $50-100k?

It seems Wired took the tweet / article down. Tried to get to it twice and got a message that the page doesn't exist.