If I was the FBI, I would want to know was on that list. Specifically, was the guy writing his own list of classmates, professors, ex-girlfriends, and people he had personal contact with... or was the list something someone else might have given him?
The story says it includes professors from the school, so it may be a personal list. Still...
So, to save the Star Wars brand after the disasters of The Last Jedi and Solo, widely described as a fuck-you to male fans of Star Wars, they are going to bring in Brie Larson, whose portrayal of Captain Marvel was widely described as a fuck-you to male fans of Marvel.
This is a brand-killing decision.
Sure, after The Last Jedi, it's not so much a death blow as it is a coup de grace, but still.
He's doing it by executive order, which I find a bit questionable, but I don't know if he has that authority under Kentucky law. Clearly he thinks he does.
As a policy matter this is a complex topic. As a political matter, the Democrats are clearly implementing this policy for electoral purposes, the same way they encourage illegal immigration and resist voter id laws. Any state they take temporary control of, they immediately seek to strengthen their hold on.
In this NBC News interview with AG Barr, he drops the word "blogosphere". That's a term that, at least to my knowledge, is both old-fashioned and limited to people who actually spent a significant amount of time reading (and often writing) blogs. Barr's use of the term suggests he may well have some awareness of the alternative media.
Watch the whole thing, as Barr brings both sanity and an implacable sense of justice to come. I hope we can rely on him.
If you don't have the 25 minutes needed to watch the whole thing, a brief summary is below.
She's asking for emotional damages and costs of therapy over the release of her text messages on her FBI device, which she should have been briefed has no expectation of privacy. Also her feelings were hurt when Trump supposedly faked an orgasm while reading her text messages aloud at a campaign rally. (He didn't; he did read them dramatically).
I figure this lawsuit will last right up to the point when someone tells Page about the discovery phase.
Normal heterosexual behaviors are normal and necessary for reproduction. If we want to continue as a species, we need to recognize that children are produced only by normal men and normal women having sex with each other. Without needing to appeal to a deity for moral judgement, we must accept reproductive sex as the way our species perpetuates itself. That means encouraging and supporting reproductive sexual behavior.
It's not necessary to be negative about folks who tastes do not run that way, and certainly not necessary to criminalize it. But it is entirely reasonable to mildly encourage one and mildly discourage the other.
Despite the lack of significant criminal referrals and the refusal to take anything short of a written confession as evidence of bad intent, the Horowitz report does do something significantly positive: it validates the reporting on the SpyGate controversy for one side, and destroys that reporting on the other. Nunes' initial memo outlining the problem is validated, and Schiff's counter-memo is exposed as a tissue of lies. The dossier is demonstrated to be the primary reason for granting the FISA, and is proven false. The FBI is proven to have known it was a pile of lies, yet continued to rely on it before the court, withholding exculpatory information and even falsifying data to the court.
While certain aspects are not proven (eg, the role of the intelligence agencies in creating the investigation using agents such as Mifsud), they are not disproven either.
So while the report is clearly imperfect and fails to bring the conclusions to their proper end with criminal referrals, it does significantly advance the ball for our side. If this was the final play, it would be a tie -- neither side got what they wanted. But it's not. Durham and Barr are clearly still pursuing matters.
So we're in the final quarter and the score is tied. It's up to Durham now.
UPDATE: A comment made late in the Senate hearing that I just noticed. Asked why the report doesn't specify criminal referrals, Horowitz responds that he felt the conduct within was so serious that he simply forwarded the whole report to DOJ/Barr to make those decisions. So, effectively, everyone mentioned in it has been referred for potential criminal prosecution.
UPDATE: Initial conclusions are that Horowitz identifies a lot of errors, mistakes, problems, procedures that were not followed, and so on, but fails to bring it home. It's a hefty black eye for the reputation of the FBI but doesn't really offer consequences other than suggesting a lot of performance reviews. It's not a whitewash, more like a greywash.
As for Horowitz himself, this report combined with the Clinton email report strongly suggests that Horowitz (an Obama appointee, remember) is playing a sacrificial defense game. He's admitting what he has to, doesn't have all the necessary information, and refusing to draw the obvious conclusions.
There's some evidence for it. This is one area of the Russia Hoax that we haven't seen fully explored and revealed yet; hopefully Barr and Durham will find enough information to legally (ie, with warrants) flip over this rock.
Unfortunately, as in this case, McCarthy doesn't always get it. There is no conspiracy theory that "Ukraine hacked the DNC email accounts" that Trump bought into. Here are the facts:
There is an argument that the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks by an insider rather than hacked. The likely candidate for the leaker is Seth Rich, a DNC staffer found murdered in DC after the publication of the emails. The only person who likely knows, Wikileaks founder Assange, has said nothing to contradict this and some things that seem to support it, including offering a reward for information leading to Rich's murderer. There is strong evidence that the emails were leaked (copied to a local USB device) rather than hacked (and transferred over the internet).
The involvement of Seth Rich is speculation. The conclusion that the server was hacked comes entirely from Crowdstrike (no one else has examined the server) and is forensically weak. Crowdstrike has a history of forensically mis-attributing things to Russian hackers, and Hillary Clinton was running an operation to tie Trump to Russians and election interference. That's a strong motive for misrepresenting the source of the emails, and preventing examination of the evidence (ie, the server) by neutral parties.
The Ukraine angle also comes from Crowdstrike, which has connections to the Ukraine and may have physical possession of the "hacked" server. Examination of the server would probably (if the evidence has not been destroyed at this point) prove or disprove the hack versus leak theory. Given that companies' links to the Ukraine, it is not unreasonable for Trump to ask Ukraine for help investigating Crowdstrike's involvement in the 2016 elections and possession of evidence related to the DNC hack.
That angle is not proven, but it's not a conspiracy theory either, and asking for evidence to determine the truth is not a characteristic of conspiracy theorists.
About the police officers who will confiscate our assault weapons...
For all of the leftist gun control fetishists who love to fantasize about getting their jackboots on and stomping all over the People, here's a wakeup call. The police won't go along with your gun confiscation schemes. At least, not universally.