Personal rant coming. And yes, before some troll gets off on a rant, this is "first world problems". I don't care.
Many of you, like me, have a credit card tied to a hotel chain. Mine is the @MarriottBonvoy AMEX. I've had it for a decade. Never had an issue.
Until now.
I booked an upcoming hotel reservation relying upon Marriot e-certificates, so the reservation is free. Those certificates were derived from the credit card, which is a joint card with my wife. There's no such thing as a "family" Marriot account, so the points from the card
accumulate on my account. I get the status, the points, etc.
So I booked the reservation. But I'm not the one staying. It's a reservation for my wife for a work thing. The problem? Marriot won't let her check in WITHOUT me. They say the certificates "can't be gifted".
I'm not giving this to a random friend, she's my damn wife.
Seriously, @Marriott? This is really how you're doing things right now? /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some of you on this website need to crack open a beer, pour a glass of wine, or simply log off for a moment. Enough with the "why hasn't Garland arrested person A over crime X" stuff already. You're starting to sound like the MAGA folks towards the end of Trump's tenure.
If there is a case to be made against a Member of Congress, or their staff, tied up in what happened on January 6th, I'm confident Garland will let DOJ pursue it to the end. I've seen nothing that indicates he views the events of that day as anything less than an attempted coup.
What he is not going to do is authorize arrests just to make you all feel better. He wants a case that will win, not just a case for the sake of having a case and the media splash. That requires time, effort and patience. It requires leveraging lower-hanging fruit first.
Ok, I’ve had a chance to read the Sussman indictment. My view: do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
If the allegations in the indictment are true, Sussman was careless about how he described his background when reaching out to the FBI. It’s not like the FBI didn’t know
one of his clients was the Clinton Campaign. He mentioned it during the meeting, and it’s reflected in the notes of the meeting. The billing records and calls with other firm colleagues certainly indicate his work was on behalf of at least one client, if not two clients.
So why not say that? The underlying details in the indictment about the work of the Tech executive and coordination of data with the Clinton campaign does not seem to have raised any criminal liability issues. So why be misleading?
For absolutely no particular reason, I am going to start posting some stories from the Obama years that are in no way related to the current media and political attacks on @MarkSZaidEsq and me.
Really, read nothing into this: this is all random.
There will be plenty more releases from the Mueller file thanks to the @BuzzFeedNews and @CNN actions but I want to comment on some of the 👀 stuff people are tweeting out.
Yes, what Gates and Bannon said to Mueller shows how the campaign was craven, sleazy and willing to
push Russian disinformation in order to win. They didn’t care. They were willing to be the beneficiary of foreign interference.
That doesn’t change the legal assessment Mueller made. That the RNC somehow knew when WikiLeaks dumps were going to come doesn’t prove they had
any role in the hack nor demonstrate that they had themselves coordinated that timing with WikiLeaks. Nor does Bannon’s recognition of having Manafort around prove anything beyond identifying an optics vulnerability.
The law simply didn’t contemplate a campaign willing to
On just about a weekly basis @MarkSZaidEsq and I spend time defending clients before U.S. Government agencies on concerns of foreign loyalties or interests. It is a critical part of any assessment of any individual seeking to hold a security clearance. “Dual loyalty” is something
we contend with on a regular basis. Needless to say, when it comes to national security the government always errs on the side of caution. If they believe the person is too exposed to foreign interests, the person is not getting a clearance.
That’s what makes the attacks
over the last 12 hours by the likes of @IngrahamAngle@RepSeanDuffy@kilmeade (none of whom, as far as I know, have ever held a clearance) and others so offensive. LTC Vindman was already vetted (more than once) on these very issues, and the vetting for someone with an
I am getting real tired of these incessant comments about "due process" being required in the House impeachment inquiry right now, and about the precedent from the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries. People are messing up their history and it needs to be clarified.
1) There is no requirement in the Constitution that an impeachment inquiry be conducted in any certain way. Article I simply says the House has the sole power of impeachment. That's it. It doesn't delineate a process or rules. The House *can* take a formal vote to launch an
impeachment inquiry, and if they do so under existing House rules there are additional due process rights afforded to the President, but there is no *requirement* that the House ever take that path, let alone at this point in time. They can do the inquiry however they deem fit.