So I'm digging around looking for some info on a marvel character in a Netflix show, and I run into an article talking about other marvel characters. One of them is Captain Marvel. Her movie is set in the 90s, and the author says that makes it the first of the Marvel movies chronologically.
I get that not everyone keeps up with this stuff.
But if it is your job to keep up with it, and write articles on the web supposedly informing other peoplle about it from a ppsition of authority, it would help to get it right.
The OTHER Marvel origin movie about a Captain, specifically Captain America, is set in World War Two.
If you are paying attention, World War Two ended in 1945. That's before 1990.
I remain convinced that Trump will have to declassify this stuff himself to get the full truth out there. The FBI and DOJ are trying to lift the curtain an inch at a time, hoping the public gets bored and/or elects Democrats before the full ugliness is revealed.
Trump possibly has his own reasons for playing footsie with Rosenstein, but the IG report on the Clinton email investigation was sufficiently watered down that I don't see how the IG report on the FISA abuse can possibly be trusted. The only way to enforce sunlight on the FBI and DOJ is to insist -- at the Presidential level -- that the full story will be declassified in the end, any attempt at a cover-up exposed, and ultimately, prosecuted.
Facebook takes down "Right Wing News" which had 3M followers
By "disinformation", Facebook means information they disagree with.
As I recall, Dr Blasey testified that she didn't know who was paying her lawyers. Who else would be paying them? Whose interests were they actually looking after? I'm pretty sure it wasn't their clients', because perjury to the Senate is a serious matter.
At this point, I'd be happy if Clinton retired from public life as a result of this scandal, but it seems she has no intention of doing that unless she is actually prosecuted. And possibly not even then.
Man who attacked Republican baseball team wanted healthcare
There are two stories here: that the attack was explicitly political, with the attacker yelling about healthcare, and the media refused to report on the attacker's political motivation. Even today, they can barely remember there was an attack; that's how strong the memory hole is.
When you evaluate a candidate, you have to look at how they actually voted, not how they claim they will vote. It is the natural instinct of the politician to tell the person they are talking to at any given moment exactly what they want to hear.
Who else paid Perkins Coie? A small organization now known as Organizing For America. You may know it better by its prior name, Obama For America. That's what it was called when he was President... you know, the person who is in charge of the FBI and the CIA that were doing the spying on Trump and possibly other Republican candidates?
Even with Trump in charge, the ATF are not our friends, and under Obama, they probably were talking rather freely about what they could do to screw gun owners. The fact that they tried to ignore a FOIA request from Judicial Watch suggests there's something ugly in the responsive documents.
Without the threat of immediate declassification hanging over his head, Rosenstein is feeling his Wheaties. If he went before Congress and testified honestly, it would be a disaster for him and fuel continued leaks to the press about what he said -- leaks that would be very personally damaging. And if he went before Congress and testified falsely, he would face criminal liability. Rosenstein feels like he's worked something out with Trump that will let him thumb his nose at Congress temporarily. Probably only temporarily, because his position still sucks. But long enough, perhaps, to get past the midterms.
Should Rosenstein be removed from Mueller investigation?
I think Rosenstein is clearly conflicted in the investigation, and has mistakes of his own to cover up. At the same time, Trump's threat to declassify material that would reveal Rosenstein's role gives Trump a certain amount of leverage on Rosenstein -- and thus on Mueller. To restrain Mueller, is it worth allowing Rosenstein to manage to exposure and cleanup of the FBI and DOJ corruption?
I don't trust Rosenstein and I don't want him in charge of anything. I don't think Rosenstein is a friend of the President. But I'm suspicious of leaks from McCabe (a known hostile) and testimony from James Baker (not known to be friendly) implying Rosenstein was a part of their operation and should be fired. Why would those two suddenly be talking up the coup unless they are trying to get Rosenstein fired? And why would they be trying to get Rosenstein fired unless they felt he was inimicable to their current interests?
My take is this:
1) The coup discussion was serious. We've had lots of press leaks about 25th amendment being invoked, and the meeting where this all started was right after James Comey got fired and right before Mueller was appointed. The obvious conclusion is that they decided at the meeting to get Mueller in place, meaning they rejected the other options.
2) The "wear a wire" comment was probably sarcastic. Wearing a wire to spy on the president would be suicidally stupid even for a trusted cabinet member. So Rosenstein was probably being sarcastic (not quite the same as joking...) about this but not about the rest.
3) The situation has changed a lot since then. Rosenstein, like Comey, is a weasel. Unlike Comey, Trump knows Rosenstein is a weasel and has a firm grip. Rosenstein has incentives to be a good little weasel until Trump is done with him, which should be as soon as Trump has put Mueller to bed and found a confirmable replacement for Rosenstein.
Are you kidding? If you're on a drug gang rip crew and you raid the wrong house, there will be consequences. When was the last time a wrong-house raid by the SWAT team had consequences for the police? (Consequences for the infants mutilated for life by the "non-lethal distraction devices" don't count).
For the scenario pictured at the link, I honestly don't think firearm selection will make much difference. If you show up with a pump-action shotgun, lever-action rifle, or bolt-action anything, you're dead; anything semi-auto with decent magazine capacity and more stopping power than a .22LR has a roughly similar chance of keeping you alive. A 1911 might be contraindicated by magazine size, but 3-3-2 is not unreasonable for a good shot.
What would be more helpful to your survival would be how quickly you can get the police on the way, whether you have any cover that will stop a .223, and whether you happened to answer the door with a loaded gun in your hand that day.