It's literally an invitation to voter fraud. "Hey, the Democrat is only down by xxx votes -- register to vote today and we can still win this!" And that's if the Democrats don't just outright make up voters.
Bloomberg goes to Iowa and endorses ethanol. I consider this his announcement for President in 2020. He's already been buying Democrat support with gun control donations. If he runs on gun control and wins, with a Democrat house and a very narrow Senate majority, we're in real trouble. Bloomberg will want to push the issue.
Trade agreement has rule changes about free speech online?
This seems like a significant poison pill to slip into legislation like this. My take is that it's not meant as a poison pill. It's meant to pass, and allow the big social media companies (whose lobbyists probably got it inserted in the first place) to take an editorial role of policing their user's content without becoming liable for that content. The large social media companies will become one-party walled gardens, protected from badthought, and policed by AIs... trained by California liberals.
Google's school software products develop dossiers on students
If Google wants its products to be used on a mandatory basis in government schools, someone in the school system should be negotiating for a complete, absolute respect for student privacy. Student accounts should be completely anonymous (as far as Google is concerned) and wiped completely when the user leaves the school system. That this has clearly not been done is troubling, and indicative of a massive government regulatory failure.
Republicans and Democrats unite to steal a House seat
Necessary context: The vote to delay certification of the results was unaminous, and the Republican primary was a close race won by the non-establishment Republican. The establishment Republicans clearly have a motive to let the seat go to the Democrats for one cycle (having already lost the House overall, one more seat matters little) and try to recapture it with an establishment candidate next time.
Caravan filled with sick, criminals, and some sick criminals
So over one third of the illegal immigrants are carrying infectious diseases. Some additional number are criminals and gang members. They are all, apparently, willing to use women and children as human shields. Why should we let them in again?
Potential BOMBSHELL: Comey denies knowing Ohr got info from Steele
This is potentially a big deal, because one of the information dumps we got before Comey's testimony includes an FBI email chain discussing Steele, Steele's contacts with the media, and other issues with Steele's information. If Comey was on that chain, and there's anything in it related to Ohr's dossier laundry service, Comey just provably lied to Congress.
It's not certain because we don't know exactly what's in that email chain. But it's worth calling out separately so it can be checked once that chain gets released. My hunch is that this line of questioning is why that chain was leaked: so Comey would know Congress knew about those emails. Did he screw up, or does that chain predate Ohr's involvement?
Asked whether the FBI or DOJ ever investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes, Comey says "I not only don't believe it, I know it not to be true."
That answer is bullshit for a variety of reasons -- Comey is hiding behind the weasel words "Trump campaign" rather than "four individuals associated with the Trump campaign" and the "political purposes" qualifier, but let's take it at face value and contrast it with the next question.
Asked whether Obama or his administration ever make a demand or request the FBI or DOJ infiltrate or surveil the Trump campaign? Comey answered, "No, not to my knowledge."
Because they absolutely did. We know they did because of Susan Rice's ass-covering last minute email to herself regarding what Obama instructed them to do about the Trump campaign investigation. Comey knows they did, but the best he can do is deny knowledge of it. Because apparently as FBI Director and now a retired person under investigation for allegedly helping fix elections, he doesn't read the news and doesn't know about Rice's email, or Brennan's demands, and so on, and so on.
Just look at the contrast between those two answers.
BOMBSHELL: Comey can't recall who told him Sessions would recuse
So Comey knows, somehow, that Sessions will resign on the Russia matter and that somehow this is connected to the Mike Flynn lying investigation, but he "doesn't remember" who told him Sessions would recuse, even though he was aware that Sessions' career officials were pressuring Sessions to recuse.
Remember, the pressure on Sessions to recuse was vital to get control of the Russia probe shifted to Rosenstein, who could and would immediately appoint a special counsel -- Mueller -- to cover everything up. If Comey was aware of the pressure on Sessions from career officials to recuse, he should know where that pressure was coming from, and those people would be members of the conspiracy being covered up.
But Comey "doesn't remember" how he learned Sessions would recuse. He doesn't remember because he doesn't want to expose the conspiracy.
BOMBSHELL: Comey likely knew about the Trump tower meeting in June 2016
Why is this important? The meeting happened June 9th, and the investigation didn't open until the end of July, and Comey says he can't answer because the question touches on Mueller's investigation. But if he didn't know about the meeting he could answer that. If he knew, and can't answer, it's because it was related to the Mueller investigation -- which didn't exist at the time.
So Comey knew about the meeting before the investigation opened in July.
How? Did he get the information from Steele, or Perkins-Coie through Baker, or surveillance on Trump?
Remember, Comey argued Clinton couldn't be prosecuted because evidence of guilt was missing. But Clinton immediately moved to delete her emails as soon as she was subpoena'd by Congress for them. That's evidence of guilty intent.
BOMBSHELL: Comey stumbles on Baker's contact with Perkins-Coie
Baker, FBI general counsel at the time, has testified that he received information from Perkins-Coie and passed it on to others. He said this was unusual ("unique", even). Comey is claiming to have absolutely no knowledge of this. Would Baker have done that and never mentioned it to Comey? Seems unlikely. My gut tells me Comey is lying here, and that he knew it was going on. Comey is claiming tips like that happened all the time, and he wants to see what Baker testified to before he answers. This is serious stumbling by Comey.
BOMBSHELL: Comey can't hold the end of July timeline!
Comey can't dance fast enough. He first denies any information gathering about Trump at the FBI before the last week of July, then walks it back and admits "it's possible I knew at the time." It was absolutely going on, and he absolutely knew about it (and still does, but he has to claim a memory lapse to avoid talking about it).
BOMBSHELL: Comey's lawyers agreed believing the testimony would be essentially public
I've discussed before that Comey and others are hiding behind classification rules and the fiction of a continuing investigation exception to protect themselves from answering dangerous questions. That's why Congress insisted that this testimony be taken behind closed doors. But Comey's lawyers seem to think that the agreement between Comey and Congress precludes such topics, effectively making the setting public and defeating the point of a closed hearing.