DC Tom

He's been honestly racist.

Seriously, they didn't even have to form their own charitable foundation. They could have worked through the Clinton Foundation. I'm sure Bill and Hillary would have happily taken a nominal few points off the top for use of their influence peddling and money laundering services. What the hell is wrong with these people? Did they ask? The Clintons were RIGHT THERE!!!!

It actually is illegal for me to read it on my own. It's also illegal for me to listen to them tell me. It's also illegal for me to remember some of the conversations I had with Paul. Classification rules can get pretty weird.

Because they know it won't go through. It'll never pass the Senate. All the House can do is make noise. And they're fine with that. Because Democrats believe Congress is nothing more than an advocacy group.

Yeah, but that pizza looks like *****.

I look forward to reading the "Moloch denies ties with Democratic Party" article coming up from the Babylon Bee. Even more, I look forward to Snopes fact checking it. Edit: Well, *****. Babylon Bee already took it one step further. https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-rates-the-devils-lies-as-mostly-true

No, vertical text is not one of his usual tropes. You're really bad at this "You're really bad at this" drinking game.

No one cares. Seriously, no one cares.

This is what the Democrats would call "witness tampering" if the party affiliations were reversed.

Now about that Steele dossier...

That's what it was - he had a stent inserted.

All that, AND plastic straws.

No *****. Hasn't it been widely reported already that Pelosi had advanced access? How do you think they came out of the gate so strong with the prepared narrative?

Still glad she's not President.

I'm sure Fauxcahontis would make it 5.

Well, typhus is "disease," so... By that logic, we're also jealous of Bangladesh and Iraq.

And that's the thing. I read it, and thought "Yes, it could be a coercive threat, or a request for a quid-pro-quo. But it could also be a change of subject." For a normal person, it would be ambiguous. For Trump, who's use of the language is bowling-ball sharp at the best of times, and who's as subtle as a shark in a goldfish bowl, it's that much worse. Really, to say it in any way proves or even represents coercion is begging the question. It's only true if you interpret it through an a priori presumption of bad acts ("Trump abuses power, therefore this is an abuse of power, which proves Trump abuses power.") . Perfectly solid grounds for impeachment, sure...

Think of them as sanctions.

That's good. They're using primary sources.

Hey, where'd the embedded tweets go?

No, in the end it's all about what you can sell. Much of what's being passed off as "fact" here is merely interpretation (and fallacious interpretation at that). Democrats and the media are doing the far better sales job, though.

But the equivalent under TX law might just be "murder." They may have "capital murder, premeditated homicide, and murder" on the books or something, and no "manslaughter" charge, and she still got the least charge. I'm honestly not interested enough to look it up.

I never had faith in Allen, mostly because he's a quarterback and not, y'know, some sort of divine entity/messiah figure. You people need a sense of perspective.

Depends on the severity of the murder charge. "Criminally negligent homicide" seems reasonable (or whatever the equivalent in TX statute.) It's unfortunate that she's likely to be punished more severely than her department, which policies seem more to blame.