And what's the legal argument, with Texas RIGHT THERE on the table to be discussed as the precedent.

If there is no record at all, I'm not surprised.
If there IS one, and it gets out... Halligan will be lucky to get back into insurance litigation.

That's actually the smart Dem move, actually. The not-feeding and screw-healthcare stuff was in the BBB back in the summer.
But now the Dems have associated it with the shutdown specifically, and the public sees MAGA to blame.

You know, she said he was always nice. Her former employer. A rich guy. Maybe her best ticket off that island. So that's what she said.
But I believe Drumpf.
Not his words, never that, but what's he's proven himself to BE. That's what I believe about hours in a room with a stunning child-victim.

Yep, something's cooking alright.
I wonder if 33% approval compares to, say, Hoover 1932?

RIGHT THERE. You discuss anything purely political in the frickin' Situation Room, people have to go to jail.

Ms. Richardson speaks for herself of course. For me, History was never broken; it's the inspiring examples that repeat themselves- Sullivan fighting racism from a position of entertainment power. Wish I had more time to talk about them in class- but you only see it against the backdrop of trouble.

I see the post is about pure History and I just go squee.
I hadn't reflected how Wilson, devastated by his stroke, was still a factor for several more years (only 67 when he died). The parallels between him and his successor to the current day are not trivial. Great to see Biden up and around.

He DOES seem to be angling for Manchin's role, one I did not understand needed to be filled.
But he's also from a swing state and won't win without Ind votes. In fact, all eight of them have some strategic reason that a "yes" vote helps them.
And it was EXACTLY 8. Republicans minus R. Paul needed 8.

If the people who think the Dems scripted this "cave" are right, then what Sanders says here is also scripted.
I think it's possible something is cooking.

That doesn't explain the Minority Whip being in the group at all, nor the Ind from ME. The group appears to have been carefully chosen. Rand Paul was always a "no", so they needed EXACTLY 8.

Fabulous rundown as we have come to expect.
I think something's cooking here. I started out thinking "Fetterman wants Manchins's old role" and now I'm seeing others point out "dude, swing state". And Durbin was a yes- this is part of a plan, isn't it?
Something's cooking.

I'm not sure what Schumer can "learn" about how e.g. Fetterman wants to be the new Manchin, or that good caucus members like King have despaired of progress.
I don't think you rally people out of that. I don't think Pelosi could have held them together.

With respect, it was time to swear her in over a month ago.
Now, it's time to recognize the non-zero chance that she will never be sworn in.

Which, based on the strong word we're getting about how bad the files are, forms a good argument for the scenario where Johnson does not, in fact, call the House back into session.

Check me if I'm wrong. A pardon is an implicit admission of guilt, isn't it? And if he specifically exempts himself from a pardon, it means a pardon could have applied.

Which is... kind of an admission of guilt...

Maybe.
Or... since it's an Amendment, it means nothing unless Johnson calls the House. Which means Grijalva. Which means files.

Which means Johnson's not calling the House. Maybe.

I think we're all agreed that the "concession" to hold a vote on ACA extension isn't worth spit.
So, given that Schumer's not an idiot, what's up? Dems caving? Or because this an Amendment, nothing happens anyway since the House would have to go back in session! Which means...

But maybe... the Dems calculate that Johnson won't bring the House back. Because files.