Summations Only

Just today, the transcripts of the Senate's Fusion GPS interviews were publically released through the efforts of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. Grassley and Graham were trying to impugn the integrity of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier while keeping the facts under wraps. I suspect that Republicans may be hoisted by their own petard.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It's the "dead behind the eyes" look that Miller has which creeps me out. You get the feeling that his expression wouldn't change if he was having sex, committing genocide, or on megadoses of Haldol.

He's like the guy who claims that he can beat up every guy in the room with his superior Kung-fu if it wasn't for his friends holding him back. He will huff and puff in order to look tough in front of his supporters, but he has absolutely no intention of voluntarily talking to Mueller. He will use the old "my lawyers stopped me from doing it" ploy.

I don't think it is true, or at least former presidents have been a bit more tactful about it.We could use Jim Comey, former head of the FBI, as an example. Trump asked him out to dinner and asked for a pledge of personal loyalty. Mind you, not loyalty to the government or the office, but to Trump personally. Comey was so shocked that a US President would do this that he made notes and told people about it. Comey also testified that he had not been asked for such a pledge from Obama or any other officials.It would make sense if Trump asked for loyalty from his chief of staff and other cabinet members, people within the White House that shape policy. However, when you demand personal loyalty from law enforcement officials you are crossing a massive red line.

At this point, I think I would be more shocked if Trump didn't ask him this question, or at least ask McCabe to swear personal fealty to the Donald. Most of the ex-Gmen I have see on TV claim that the FBI is overwhelmingly Republican.

It's also a bit hypocritical. Their argument is that the dossier shouldn't be believed because it came from the Democracts, so it is biased simply due to the fact it comes from a partisan political party. They then turn around and claim that this memo should be believed, and yet it came from a partisan political party. Their own argument against the dossier also refutes their own memo.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Even Nunes is admitting that the courts were told that the source of the controversial dossier was political in nature."A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign."--Nunes
Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant - POLITICOJust to keep score on this, Hannity over at Fox News has dubbed the pseudo-conspiracy the worst scandal in US history, above Watergate and presumably Iran-Contra. The scandal? The DOJ and FBI weren't specific enough on the political source for the dossier which was just one piece of evidence amongst many. On top of that, the target of the surveillance wasn't even a member of the Trump campaign at the time, and according to some in the Trump administration he was never a member of the campaign.Yeah, worse than Watergate, obviously.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

A shell bill would require an open debate so that the bill could take shape through amendments. You can also have a well defined bill that goes to open debate which would allow amendments to be voted on and included in the bill.What McConnell appears to be doing is letting the bill take shape through an open and bipartisan process which could result in the first bill in the last year that Congress can actually be proud of. . . Or, it could be a sham and it will be shut down as soon as debate starts.

The scary part is that the Kush has been sitting in on the most sensitive briefings (e.g. the President's daily briefing) without that top clearance. It has now come forward that at least 4 foreign government sought to manipulate Kushner through his all too obvious greed:https://www.cnbc.com/...-influence-jared-kushner-report.htmlOnce this stuff started leaking out to the press it made Kelly's decision pretty easy.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As far as I am aware, POTUS can unilaterally declare something to be unclassified, and can also choose to share whatever information they want with whomever they want. Kicking Kushner out of the White House is more about politics than law . . . again, as far as I am aware.

It is probably like choosing a lawyer. Do you want to hire a lawyer with the highest of moral values, or do you want a good lawyer?

Not necessarily. If the case gets your name in the news AND you have a good chance of winning, then it may be worth it to take on a client who won't pay so that you can't get better clients in the future. However, if the client won't pay AND makes you look bad, then it definitely isn't worth it.

It is also Congress' prerogative to impeach the President if there is an abuse of power.Dershowitz might as well say that there is nothing wrong with a judge being bribed since the decision in a case is the judge's prerogative.

Avenatti exudes the used car salesman creep factor, at least in my eyes. Perhaps I am in the minority on this one, but I don't know if he will be able to connect with a larger national audience. I do agree he is very well spoken and has a sharp mind, but he also seems a bit too slick at times.I think Avenatti would be much more influential as the brains behind a campaign.

Trump might as well say that driving the getaway car for a bank robbery is not a crime because driving is not a crime.