4. So what I want to know is whether Sinema scooted because she's either infected or expects to test positive. Think she and bad boy Brett had a little clandestine meeting? Maybe sing #KochNetwork team song? @BennieGThompson can subpoena their protective details and find out.
5. Any science folks know if there is any similarity in the virus that can prove that someone who contracted likely caught it from a suspected infected person?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. If the reports are true that the #ChineseCommunists have occupied the US base at #Bagram, #Afghanistan@POTUS@JoeBiden's @WhiteHouse must confirm it. First, I have a rule about reporting. If I know something about a US operation that is not publically known, including
2. being known to our adversaries, I won't post it. My dad covered the Chinese Civil War for the @AP and my mom, who witnessed it, and I often discussed the ethics of reporting in a war zone, and I'm confident that the US press corps is not obligated to report things that might
3. harm national security. My general rule is, if the enemy knows, then the US people generally have a right to know. Besides the terrorists, the #ChineseCommunists are as close to an enemy as we currently have. And if they are in Bagram they certainly know it and our confirming
2. The number and scope of the #DaeshK attacks in #Afghanistan strongly suggests that #DaeshK have been successful at increasing force size as an anti-Taliban alternative. By not being engaged in defeating #Taliban, both @POTUS and @KremlinRussia_E risk building a more deadly
3. international #Daesh terrorist force. The Russia's southern flank will be more-sooner impacted, but this will eventually spread if no action is taken to stop it, especially with #Pakistan's undeterred malign involvement and terrorist infested north.
1. My two cents on judge Pitman's ruling in the Texas abortion ban case. I think he will follow existing law and find that there is a high likelihood that the DOJ will prevail on the merits that Texas violated the constitutional rights of its citizens.
2. There was a sufficient showing that there is imminent irreparable harm being caused by the law, and an order enjoining the conduct can remedy future harm to others. He'll likely find the act is void, and likely grant a "preliminary injunction."
3. That order is immediately appealable so if he does that, he knows that the 5th Cir likely stays his order. But, if he grants a "TRO" and then sets for another hearing on a short setting regarding issues that he may require more briefing or a more complete record, he stops the
2. It is a kind of "partnership in crime" in which each member becomes the agent of every other member. It does not matter whether or not the conspiracy was successful. The essence of the offense is that two or more persons have combined, or mutually agreed, to do
3. something illegal."
The challenge I see is that manipulating US statutes to some purpose that may be offensive but not overtly criminal, may be a defense to the scheme. I would look for evidence that they agreed to obstruct Congress though that count is still problematic
1. Monday afternoon (it's still Sunday here) something is scheduled at #UNGA that I'm keeping an eye on. It was listed as the last thing on UNGA's afternoon calendar. The UN spox confirmed that, as of Friday, Afghanistan’s currently recognized
2. U.N. ambassador, Ghulam Isaczai, is listed to speak. The Taliban's request to send their chosen ambassador was not ruled on by the UN and reports say is unlikely to be addressed in advance of Monday's scheduled address. The Taliban are operating under the apparent
3. assumption that their junta will be recognized. If it ever is, it's unlikely to be soon. So who actually has the power to speak for Afghanistan? TFG's 29Feb deal required a transition. The Taliban attacked and repudiated that part of the deal, plus they put al-Qaeda
2. "It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo that bent important legal strictures, potentially jeopardized the Justice Department’s work toward prosecuting Assange, and risked a damaging episode in the United Kingdom, the United States’ closest ally."
3. IMO this is just getting rid of a witness who threatened to expose Putin's masterpiece. Not a big deal and totally unsurprising.