How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App
I misspoke(?) when I connected my argument to attorney-client privilege. While cmtes do resolve an assertion of a-c privilege as a matter cmte discretion, Cheney talking w/ Hutchinson w/o her attorney is not an a-c issue.https://x.com/mls1776/status/1869102866574569781
After all, it says if the Houses are in disagreement "with Respect to the Time of Adjournment," the president "may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper".
https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1851661262289338469That is, re the joint session, unless Johnson were _somehow_ to have the votes of a majority of the House and of the Senate, the JS things @ElieNYC outlines can't happen – and that's true whether something is done during this Congress or after the start of the next on Jan 3.
https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1850785596278481346C) If Repubs have only the House, or if they have both Houses but not the votes in the Senate, then at that point the only way they could steal the election would be by trashing the ECRA (eg, walking out), then electing Trump speaker & letting him succeed as acting-president.
… opening "all the certs", even just "purport[ed]" certs" – that Pence didn't open "purported" certs from Trump's electors? His decision on that was beyond ministerial (and that the Parls advised him to do it doesn't change that). I said at the time…
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1798387936851095947
… intel briefings because, of course, that goes with the job to which the voters elected them. But Scott Perry & Ronny Jackson's elections to the House didn't elect them to receive those briefings as members of HPSCI. No, that's entirely in the Speaker's discretion. Indeed…
Specifically, the financial disclosure rules exempt *non-interest-bearing* checking accounts.
There, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield:
https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1664706852062482450"Extortion" is the coin of the realm in Congress-Exec Branch . Were the stakes here unusually large? Yes. Were the threats from House Repubs nuts? Yes. But such "extortion" is not going away, and to think Biden could have made it go away is, in its own way, also nuts.
Some notes:https://twitter.com/KDbyProxy/status/1664455329164275712?s=20
Here's a hint: This is the very next line in the Record...
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1663188902260228097
A candidate running for president on a promise to end an "ideology" is running in the wrong country. And by phrasing it as he does, DeSantis reinforces what we've already come to see about his vision of gov't – setting not just policies, but also how everyone should think.
4) FUN FACT: Apart from whether he should be expelled (again, he should), the timing of Santos' departure is (potentially) a BFD to both Republicans and Democrats – specifically b/c of (A) the impending vote(s) on a debt limit deal, and (B) math...https://twitter.com/KDbyProxy/status/1658581953841332231
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655990886063546370
While it's not uncommon for me to disagree with Sen @RonWyden on issues, I consider him one of the Senate's best tacticians, and so in light of the reply from Harlan Crow's lawyer, I'd guess his @SenateFinance staff now (if not already 2 weeks ago) has a 6103 request in process. 


https://twitter.com/drdave1999/status/1650220628559929345
Here's the Florida bill language. Note it claims the bill wouldn't really _change_ anything; that it's just "intended to clarify existing law". 🤔https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1650936257025810454?s=20
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1648417549925662721
If Durbin doesn't get this story straightened out (that he could issue subpoenas by getting Feinstein's proxy), should we consider he doesn't really want to investigate Thomas – not b/c he thinks there shouldn't be an investigation, but because _he_ doesn't want to get into it?

And yes, I know Tom Fitton & other Trumpalites yap that Judicial Watch v NARA (which Fitton's side lost) says Trump can claim any doc as a "personal record" and (they yap) that that claim is not subject to judicial review, but that's 🐂💩. Indeed, it's 🐂💩 for 3 reasons:
For starters, House Rules aren't numbered by "Chapter"; there are 29 of them and they're simply numbered by Roman numerals.