2/ So @CNN thought biggest take-away was that Russia is still meddling "as we sit here." That CNN thought that was the biggest take-away tells me that they haven't been listening to a word from the right. AG Barr testified that months ago, see my @FDRLSTedition.cnn.com/2019/07/24/pol…
3/3 No, the biggest take-away was that Mueller didn't know who Fusion GPS was and that that aspect was beyond his "purview." Sequestering myself now to work on more complete thoughts. END
THREADETTE: There were several telling exchanges during yesterday's SCOTUS argument in Trump v. Slaughter, but the one that struck me most was the final exchange between Justice Jackson & Slaughter's attorney. Read the full exchange below. 1/
2/ The problem is fundamental! Article I of the Constitution vests in CONGRESS the power to legislate--not unelected bureaucrats! And this ties into a second point: Jackson, Kagan, & Sotomayor all stressed Congress's "reliance interests" in creating "independent" agencies
3/ with the threesome arguing Congress relied limits on President's removal authority in granting agency regulatory authority. Well, there is a much bigger reliance interest at stake!
😡😡😡ABSOLUTELY. DISGUSTING! So-called "Republican" Dan Schaetzle is smearing my brother Jamie O'Brien, who is huge MAGA (might that be why?). While a local story, Schaetzle's behavior should be make him anathema in not just politics but polite society! 1/
/2 Also shame on @16NewsNow for pushing Schaetzle's preferred narrative that it is about my brother when more accurately Schaetzle is claiming the County never should have sought pension for ANY County Council attorneys most (all?) of whom were Dems before my brother.
@16NewsNow 3/ Here's the backdrop on Slimy Schaetzle's plot with details from Amy Drake.
Holy CRAP! A district court judge entered an injunction that allowed the states that had processed 100% of SNAP without authorization to keep the money! Trump is still seeking stay of lower court's order to fund SNAP with school lunch money. 1/
2/ Trump Administration calls out 1st Cir.'s ridiculous reasoning. This in essence is the problem: