The problem is that federal funding always, always, comes with strings. Sometimes attached later, even if the original legislation is reasonable. Still, the current situation represents an opportunity. Teachers' unions are demanding more tax money while refusing to do their job at even the level of a day care facility, and that demand is both so outrageous and so noticeable that alternative solutions are clearly needed.
The chances the current House passes any legislation like this are slim to none, but the situation may be different next year.
Sally Yates contradicts Strzok's notes about Jan 5th meeting
In her opening statement, she described the January 5th meeting, claiming she did not recall all the details but that the President and Vice President did not give any directions concerning the investigation of Flynn. This is contradicted by Flynn's notes ("make sure the right people are on it" attributed to Obama, and "Logan Act" attributed to Biden). There are additional places where her testimony conflicts with that from others.
The main takeaway from me is that Comey is the designated person who will be offered up to the wolves lead by Durham and Barr. The question is whether Comey will fall on his sword to protect Obama, or whether Comey flips and points the finger upwards.
The discussion of pardons is significant to me for two reasons. First, obviously, is what they know. Flynn knows what the intel community has been up to and has promised to expose it. Snowden already has exposed it (and while I'm not a fan of everything he did, especially hiding out in Russia, I think exposing what US intel agencies were abusing their authority to do was absolutely righteous). And, of course, Assange knows where Wikileaks really got the DNC emails from and can thus expose the whole Russia hoax as a fraud from the start. (There are other possible figures for pardons, too, but those are the big three, and Trump ruled out Snowden and Flynn for this announcement).
But, second... it shows Trump is very, very, very pissed off at the intelligence community and is losing patience with AG Barr. If Barr was making satisfactory progress, Trump wouldn't feel the need to add to the pressure. And yet, talk of pardons.
UPDATE: Susan B Anthony? I didn't see that one coming. I can only parse this as a threat to the intel agencies, reminding the he could still pardon any of the above.
In the US, the Deep State (represented by Fauci on the medical side, the Democratic party, and the media) want to oust Trump. I've mentioned previous how the virus helps that effort, along with delaying and distracting from SpyGate.
In the UK... well, you haven't heard about how Brexit is or isn't going to happen in a while, have you?
In many other nations, it matters less because their media doesn't necessarily operate in English, making the internal posture less visible. Are China or Russia panicking too? Who knows? I would guess not, at this point. Tracking, yes. Panicking, no.
So, again, why are we panicking? Because it is politically useful to those who would be our masters.
We all know Biden has to hide in his basement to prevent his cognitive decline from being completely obvious. In fact, he's already in such bad shape that he can't even attend his own nominating convention. But, who will be there to speak to the assembled Democrats who want to drag him over the finish line? Hillary and Obama. Which tells us who is really in charge.
It's probably taking so long for the Biden campaign to pick a VP because the two of them are fighting to the death over who it will be.
So who is Hillary's candidate? I'd guess Hillary herself, except Hillary doesn't meet the "black" part of Biden's criteria. A bitter pill for Hillary to swallow, but if she can put someone she can control into the VP slot, it might be enough for her.
FBI lawyer pleads guilty to false statement felony
So, it seems likely this plea is an indication that Clinesmith is cooperating. He's the obvious lever (given that he modified an email relied upon by the Carter Page FISA, that makes him an easy target) and assuming Barr and Durham are serious about going after higher ups, Clinesmith has probably already spilled everything he knows and will be expected to testify in court.
Joe quotes Alan Gottlieb suggesting that the NRA's strength is in its members, and adds that the current troubles might lead to a better organization that serves its members' interests in protecting their rights, rather than spending a lot of money mailing them about silly insurance programs.
I agree that's likely to happen. Wayne LaPierre and his cadre are not the NRA; they can be removed and replaced, and even the members can be replaced. We, gun owners at the grassroots level, can support other organizations that defend the 2nd Amendment (and many of us already have been).
The problem is, there will be a period of chaos while the various organizations sort themselves out and compete for NRA members looking for a new gun rights home, and the NRA itself is distracted defending itself. That's where the timing of this action is both political and diabolical. Those months of chaos will be happening right in the middle of the election.
There has been a bit of a kerfluffle over misgendering characters in computer games lately. This shows up in a variety of different forms. I will quickly dismiss the case one NPC misgendering and "deadnaming" another as silly; if it's part of the NPC's character and personality to do that, for whatever reason, that's simply who the character is. We can criticize the character or the game itself if so inclined (I am NOT so inclined), but it's really nothing that anyone should get worked up about. Unless they are already worked up about gender issues, and in that case, it's really more about them than about the game.
The case that I actually want to talk about is Assassin's Creed: Valhalla's decision to include both a male and female version of the protagonist. Some people are worked up over this, claiming that "the devs" wanted Eivor to be exclusively female, and that "the executives" overruled them, and then further insisted that the marketing campaign focus on the male version of the character rather than the female version.
First, a couple disclaimers. I am a gamer, but have not played most of the Assassin's Creed series, and definitely not this specific game. I have no inside info and can offer only the consumer perspective...
He recently wrote an op-ed arguing that FBI and DOJ employees should refuse to cooperate with the Durham probe. Not only would this violate a basic sense of justice and (probably) their employment contracts, it would seem to constitute obstruction of justice by Weissmann's own theories. When he was running the Mueller probe, he sought to advance the idea that Trump's tweets saying Russiagate was a hoax and asserting his innocence were not only obstruction of justice but worthy of impeachment. Luckily, saner heads prevailed, but that was Wiessmann's position when he held the other end of the stick.
Graham wants to know who gave the briefing to SSCI. I'm with Sundance in not believing Graham's outrage here; it's coming way too late to be real. The benefit here, small but real, is that lying to Congress about this is something that can actually be prosecuted. Except it never seems to be. As for Graham, he's promised to write a letter. Not even a strongly-worded one.
Sara Carter is tired of waiting for Durham to indict someone. So am I. The strategy is absolutely transparent: delay as long as possible by whatever means necessary, and when there are no more delays, insist it's too close to the election to release anything because of the political impact, and then hope Trump loses.
Barr doesn't seem to be willing to play along with that, but ... is that itself a delaying tactic? He's declined McCabe and Comey already for leaking, even while DOJ prosecutes ordinary people for leaking.
The last person you interview is usually the target. Of course we don't know if Brennan is the last interview, but he certainly thinks he is in Durham's crosshairs. While we know a fair bit about the role of people at FBI and DOJ, we know a lot less (publicly) about Brennan's role, although we do know he was involved in briefing Congress on the Steele dossier and had access to the Steele information earlier than he has claimed to.
The founder of Project Veritas is reporting he has been put on the NICS list to deny his right to purchase a firearm. He has a misdemeanor conviction, but generally misdemeanors are not a bar to firearms rights unless they are related to drug addiction, gang membership, or domestic violence. O'Keefe's conviction was for peacefully conducting undercover journalism, which doesn't seem like it should be a bar to firearms ownership.
So how did he get on the list?
I've got a feeling the FBI is going to be sorry they picked this fight.