That's the question: UPDATE: 650+ former federal prosecutors https://t.co/yATd5Tvec5— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 7, 2019
On a side note - I thought the legal profession was dying? 650 former federal anything is a shit ton.
I'm wondering how they verify the signatures. Perhaps former federal prosecutors Hugh Jass and Mike Hunt can weigh in on this for us.
This could go a few places.... Refuse to release the redacted portions of the Mueller report to ensure those already indicted (and referenced in the redacted sections)cannot be prosecuted. The scary thing is that the judge might “enforce” her order by dismissing charges against Stone unless Barr complies! How convenient: this spares 45 the need to obstruct justice by pardoning Stone! @AriMelber @maddow @Lawrence https://t.co/uXsE1oBAanhttps://t.co/uXsE1oBAan— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) May 9, 2019
NY is gonna give He Who Shall Not Be Named's tax returns to Congress. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/nyregion/trump-tax-returns-ny-state.html (Also, they're totally gonna kick him off the ballot in 2020.)
We all know that New York is one of those piddly little inconsequential states that hardly matter, but in the grand scheme of things, there must be at least a couple of Trumpanzees who will cry holy hell if they ever kicked him off the ballot in a state he wasn't gonna win anyway...
Maybe you have some form of synesthesia. Can you tell me what emotional attachment you place on the numbers 333, 476, and 172?
Devin Nunes signing onto Adam Schiff's subpoena of counterintelligence info and underlying evidence from the Mueller investigation is kind of intriguing. Most of the motivations of the players in this drama have been pretty clear all along (aside from Rosenstein, who's been kind of a weirdo from the beginning) - and Nunes has been one of the most obvious of all. Why would he go from being pro-coverup to being pro-transparency in this specific case? My only guess is that Nunes wants to know what the Mueller investigation turned up on him, and whether he's mentioned in one of the "Harm to Ongoing Matter" redactions. But it's mysterious.
There has to be more, I am sue he would have been told on the side on what was there, if not just to keep him in check if it was bad. He probably knows that it has no teeth and the White house will just ignore it. He looks bipartisan and nothing happens.
I think he believes his own BS, or Barr's-- he thinks it will prove conclusively that no crimes were committed.
Would be interesting to see this number after Mueller goes to the Hill. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds the number of Americans who said President Trump should be impeached rose 5 percentage points to 45% since mid-April.
Let's say that New York kicks Trump off the ballot. 2.9 million New Yorkers voted for Trump. He lost the 2016 election by three million votes. Losing another three million while winning the Electoral College again would be absolutely unbelievable. So I say we do it. Further de-legitimize him and the EC.
"Why does Barr disagree with a bipartisan group of federal prosecutors?" is sort of like asking: "Why do Republicans disagree with the science of climate change?" More tautological scat from the right.
Balkanizing the ballot is a BAD!! idea. Nothing reeks of rigged election more than not acknowledging the candidates are the candidates. Weve let our two party sham become too ingrained to start listing only one. Whats to stop Dixie from last second instituting a totally unconstitutional religious test too suddenly for the courts to settle it 'in time'? This is how they litigate gerrymandering now. Better not to give the Manchurian Cantaloupe any fodder. then, go to ranked voting.