Finally: we know who to blame for the emotional support pony on the airplane
I'm a cat person. I'll admit it. I like cats because cats will cheerfully survive with minimal human attention. Food, litter, occasional ear-scritches. And the ear-scritches are really just a bonus. Cats don't need to be walked at 3am or fed every day at the same time or stared down and taught to distinguish guests from burglars.
But you can't really train cats very effectively. I believe you can train a dog to be an actual emotional and medical support animal. Not a cat, or a pig, or a peacock, or a pony. Maybe a parrot. ("Polly wanna hugs!")
Majorities think Obama spied on Trump and want a special counsel
They took their responses only from those who claimed they were following the story "very closely" or "somewhat closely". That doesn't invalidate their numbers, particularly the Democrat numbers, but does mean the results aren't necessarily predictive of election results.
Check below the fold for a poll with a more general audience.
And now what certainly appears to be an anthrax attack, or at least an attempt to cause terror by faking one. The media-driven Democrat hysteria appears to be acquiring a body count. It needs to stop. Trump won the election; let him govern until you can try to vote him out in 2020.
Another data point for psychoactive medications being a bad idea. But the case isn't fully closed; despite committing suicide (supposedly) before the police even got close, he had scrapes on his right upper calf and a bruise on his left calf. Injuries sustained while the police arrested a corpse, or in a fight before he was killed by someone else?
This site has been doing a remarkable job putting together the publicly available evidence into a coherent whole. And with that "small group" idea in your head, go over and take a look at the gap at Department of Justice.
Due to the glacial pace of Senate confirmations, many slots at DOJ are vacant, which means the Obama holdovers are still in control there.
Last I checked, there were about 800,000 registered aliens in the DACA program, often called "Dreamers" for deceptive political purposes. Trump offered about twice that number (registered DACA recipients and "potential" DACA recipients who did not in fact sign up).
By my math, if a Dreamer amnesty equals a wall, Trump should get funding for two border walls. Buy one, get one free. Maybe we can build one along the Canadian border when the one along the Mexican border is finished.
Trump should veto any budget bill that includes amnesty and does not include funding -- real money, not "authorized", since it's been "authorized" since the Bush presidency.
He's right. It's a bipartisan problem. Democrats don't want to cut spending for ideological reasons and (most) Republicans don't want to cut spending for... well, I don't know why not other than establishment fingers in government pies.
Another swamp creature self-identifies and self-deports...
From the swamp, that is, not the country. Associate Attorney General Rachael Brand, immediately under Rod Rosenstein, was responsible for FISA surveillance and advocated for national surveillance authority.
Note that conflation of opinions people disagree with and violence. Note the emphasis on responding to this man's op-ed piece in a student newspaper with calls to punish him, ostracize him, and repeatedly equating his opinion with violence. When your opinion is violence, using violence to make you shut up becomes self-defense. No, that's not a legitimate equation; it is, however, the inevitable end result of this type of response.
And that, I think, is deliberate.
It has intimidation value. Intimidation makes people shut up.
UPDATE: This is how it works. They call your speech violence and hate speech, and say it shouldn't be allowed, despite the fact that it is absolutely not either of those things. Then they insist you hire 30 police officers for "security" during the speech, because the leftists there will riot. And then the people holding the event are asked to pay the fees for several hours of overtime for each of those police officers. (For 30 of them, it adds up fast). Result? The ordinary, non-controversial right-leaning speaker has costs hugely higher than the corresponding left-wing speaker, is routed to a much smaller venue ("security concerns"), and has a much smaller audience.
So, a poll from The Hill says that a majority of voters oppose building a wall on the border with Mexico. That's 59% oppose, 37% support. Who voted in this poll? 1333 (and isn't that number just a little suspicious?) registered voters. Not likely voters. And the last time we had an actual election on this issue, with millions of people weighing in on building the wall as a major centerpiece of Trump's proposed policies, Trump won.
Because Trump won, and because his party won control of both houses of Congress, the policies of that party should, in some form, be implemented. That means Trump should get a wall.
That he doesn't already have one is an embarrassing failure of democracy. (It's not like there are serious constitutional barriers; just political ones).
The leakers say they cut off the deal because they didn't want to be seen buying make up dirt on the president. But, of course that's what they wanted. If you were about to spend $100K, wouldn't you check to make sure you were actually getting what you asked for before you paid? The Trump dirt is what they paid for, so it's what they got. The rest is a smokescreen, something they are using to try to distract from the facts.
In addition to the FBI spying on Trump using our national intelligence infrastructure, our own government and intelligence agencies (the Obama administration) colluded with the Russians to try to stop Trump from getting elected. They paid Russian spies for dirt on Trump.
"Russian collusion" has been a massive case of psychological projection all along. The Democrats, both Obama and Hillary, have been the ones colluding with Russia to meddle in the presidential election.
FBI informant testifies Russians bragged about HIllary's influence in Uranium One
Patterico has the details. He calls it collusion, which isn't inaccurate, but rather understates the case. Given the financial arrangements between Hillary, her husband, the Clinton Foundation, and various Russians involved in Uranium One deal, I'd suggest "bribery" and "corruption" might be more appropriate terms.
"Treason" isn't off the table either, given what uranium can be used for.
Newsflash to Pelosi: THe House does not have a filibuster rule. Schumer has some room to negotiate for concessions, as McConnell does not have 60 votes. You, however, have a distinct minority in the House and your approval is not required for Ryan to pass a budget or any other legislation.
One thing I wonder about is why we are continually told to assume that only Hillary Clinton got paid off by the Russians in the Uranium One deal. There were a lot of other people involved. Did anyone else get paid off?
We are so incredibly lucky that despite the abuse of our national security and intelligence infrastructure against him, Trump won. If he had not, this abuse would have become normalized practice, and no politician not already a member of the deep state would have even come close to the White House.
The FBI did not care about Bruce Ohr meeting with Steele until the IG found out about it.
Someone lied about Steele's media contacts while he was working with the FBI. Was it the FBI lying to Congress or Steele himself lying to the FBI? Either way, someone's bound to get in trouble for it; remember, this document is itself a criminal referral on that point. Senator Grassley is asking for someone to be prosecuted.
We learn a little more about the FISA applications disclosure of political motives. Specifically stated, "The application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr Simpson's ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC." The application did state that the dossier was compiled by a law firm who had hired an "identified U.S. person". Note that it doesn't say anything about political motives there. The implication is that a law firm hired a private investigator, presumably to find information related to a legal case. Debt collectors or divorce lawyers would commonly seek to obtain information from private investigator sources, and such information would be more reliable than political opposition research where simply making stuff up appears perfectly acceptable so long as the half-life of believability is longer than the election.
We learn that Clinton associates were feeding Steele information that he included in his dossier. While we don't know how much they provided or what that information was, it sounds like the Clinton campaign was basically feeding Steele whatever information they wanted him to have, and he was feeding that information to the FBI, which accepted it uncritically and used it to get surveillance authorization before, during, and after the election.
Steele (and possibly others) were simultaneously pushing the information to the press, and using the existence of the dossier in the FBI's hands and Steele's status as a paid FBI information to enhance his own credibility in the eyes of the press even as the FBI viewed the resulting press reports as independent corroboration of his information.
It was, basically, circular.
The FBI used it anyway, even after they found out.