Of course, having run out of other excuses, the Democrats plan to replace the illegals Trump is deporting with 50,000 climate refugees a year. Which is absurd, because there are no climate refugees. It's not a real thing; it's just an excuse for more immigrants, preferably poor ones who can't speak the language and need Democrat handouts to survive.
Look, Tesla's are neat, I like that Musk is pushing the boundaries of what we think is possible, I like that he's challenging the established manufacturers and the current technological freeze. And I recognize that the software startup ethos is first-to-market wins.
But software doesn't follow the same principles as a 4000-pound automobile moving around other people.
Why impeachment, despite Mueller's failure to deliver?
I hadn't quite put these dots together, but it makes a lot of sense. Specifically, if Justice Ginsburg is in such poor health that she might not make it to the next inauguration, Democrats will be in an utter panic. (We The People know that RBG is not in good health, generally, but we lack information on the urgency of the matter that insider Democrats probably do). The Republicans control the Senate and will be able to confirm a replacement, barring shenanigans, and assuming the seat opens up with a reasonable amount of time before the election.
But, the Democrats will say (while pointing to Merrick Garland), should we really allow a President who has been impeached but not yet tried in the Senate to nominate a Supreme Court Justice? Shouldn't the Senate conduct the trial before confirming such an important post? And that's actually a reasonable position... assuming the impeachment itself was reasonable, anyway.
So the "impeachment" is, at least in part, an emergency brake on RBG's seat being filled (if necessary) by Trump.
There are a lot of reasons Democrats want to impeach Trump, but none of them are actually impeachable offenses, and the impeachment timeline is heavily dependent on just a few of them.
As for the odds on whether Pelosi considers impeachment serious or just a media distraction and election tactic -- when she actually holds votes on articles of impeachment in the House, then and only then will she be serious about it. Right now she's using the language of impeachment without actually voting on it, and that tells me it's an electoral/distraction tactic.
Hell, yes, they are coming to take your guns. They want to ban all semi-automatic firearms (which means basically all firearms that aren't bolt-action hunting rifles, with revolvers sitting in a weird category) and the ammunition that goes with them (meaning your hunting rifles won't have any ammo; only a few cartridges specific to revolvers will be available). And that person, a California politician, thinks those rules match California's gun laws now. (She's wrong).
Read the filing, too. "Evidence of entrapment" may even be understating the case here. I'd argue it's proof of entrapment.
UPDATE: Meaning in History points out that the prosecution of Flynn was conducted by the Mueller special counsel team, containing the same people who had interviewed Flynn and (initially) reported he was telling the truth. In other words, Mueller (or his team) knew and prosecuted him for years anyway.
Durham's SpyGate investigation is now officially a criminal investigation
I'm honestly not sure why this step is only being taken now; it seems likely there was more than enough available evidence before. My guess is that Durham and Barr wanted to keep the investigation a non-criminal one as long as possible for some policy or procedural reason, and this change has some policy or procedural reason to be happening right now.
First, Clapper and Brennan have been making noise in public about Durham wanting to interview them. Why would they make noise about that? The only reason that makes sense is that they think they are targets and would be at risk if they were interviewed. They are probably right about that; they are almost certainly targets, and sitting to an interview would make them sitting ducks for the kind of perjury trap that got Michael Flynn in so much trouble. So, likely they refused to be interviewed voluntarily, and they are no longer employed by the government, so IG Horowitz doesn't have any lever to make them agree. A criminal investigation can compel them to either talk, or plead the 5th.
Who are these close associates? Well, apparently they are anonymous, and they want Trump to protect the Republicans in the Senate, some of whom (those on the Senate Intel Committee at a minimum) were likely involved in SpyGate. That tells me who those associates were: McConnel, Senate Majority Leader, or someone in his case; or, in the alternative, one of the Republicans on the Senate Intel Committee.
And that, I think, reveals the entire impeachment theater exercise for what it is: a political bargaining chip, threatening Trump with impeachment if Barr follows the threads of the SpyGate plot far enough to threaten Democrats in general (Pelosi's part) and Senate Republicans (the people "advising" Trump here).
There's just two problems with that.
First, Trump doesn't need a Senate majority to withstand impeachment. If he's willing to fight, he can survive with just 34 votes. It's nice to have a Senate majority, but it's not a sword of Damocles. Trump can afford to lose any of the Republican senators directly involved here.
Second, interfering with Barr's investigations by threatening impeachment is bordering on obstruction of justice.
And finally... remember that a solid majority of likely voters think the law was broken trying to STOP Trump.
So Netflix has a newish film production by the above name. It looks like an interesting serial killer mystery with a touch of sci-fi and decent production values. (To be fair, it is that, though the plot "twists" I had confidently predicted before the movie was halfway through). Without going into spoiler territory, though, it has a serious problem.
The plot of the film is basically an attempt to smear the founding fathers -- Jefferson, George Washington, probably others -- and to some extent the American Revolution itself as responsible for racism, white nationalism or some sort of white supremacy (details conveniently left out). It then attempts to justify the murder of innocent people in order to "stop the idea before it is even born", an idea which falls somewhere between censorship and political murder.
I was very offended by the anti-Americanism present. I present this brief review as a warning. I watched it so you will know not to.
Glenn Simpson: Steele dossier went directly to Obama
Another bombshell, and this one pretty clearly implicates Obama in everything that was based on the Steele dossier (or any of its component parts).
Be alert for the attempts to tie the beginning of the effort to Republicans, and keep in mind that desperate the feverish efforts of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Mueller, all of the Russian collusion was proven to be nonsense in Mueller's own report.
Boom? Does the FBI have possession of two Mifsud cell phones?
Mifsud is, of course, the "mysterious Russian agent" used to set up SpyGate; it's likely he's actually Western intelligence tasked with ... well, setting up SpyGate. He's been in hiding and seems to feel his life is in danger. Since he literally has information that could implicate both Clinton and Obama in the greatest abuse of government power in our national history, he's probably right. Just look at what happened to Epstein.
Nunes has information claiming journalists were monitored
The claims appear to relate to John Solomon (who has been covering SpyGate extensively) and matters in Ukraine, perhaps (Nunes did not mention, but the story does) the former ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled.