1. This "omnibus" is one of the ugliest, least transparent bits of lawmaking I've ever seen--and that's saying something. It isn't just the spending, though the new domestic numbers are gross, given the trillions spent in the past few years. 2. It's also that Congress, in a new trick, is attaching dozens of pieces of stand-alone legislation to this--retirement changes; public lands management; healthcare policy; cosmetics regulation; electoral count act changes; horseracing rules.

The GOP choice: Make way for a new generation of winning leaders, or stick with a guy who keeps losing Republicans key elections. wsj.com/articles/donal… via @WSJ 2) For those saying Trump wasn't on the ballot, c'mon. He was definitive in candidates chosen for major races who got trounced/beat. Bolduc/Oz/Dixon/Michels/Mastriano. The rallies clearly didn't help--tho might have hurt.

1) The comment section for this piece is clocking a lot of liberal pushback, and their arguments provide great insight as to why the left likes this system..... wsj.com/articles/the-r… via @WSJ 2) It basically goes like this (I will decode): Our current two-party primary/election system is turning out "radicals" (ie, conservatives) that are bad for society (ie, liberal causes)....

1) I see @Liz_Cheney retweeted this. Someone ought to ask her how a conservative can justify a committee plan to rifle through the emails/voicemails/texts/calls of private citizens, including her colleagues--without giving them opportunity to litigate.

https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1432870955949363200

2) Last I knew, principled conservatives had issues with government that thinks it has a limitless right to secretly spy on its citizens--depriving them of the right to contest in court. Remember the whole FISA/Carter Page thing?

1) This article is so off base as to be laughable. cnn.com/2021/08/31/pol… 2) The Jan. 6 Committee hardly has an obvious right to this information. We have laws protecting American privacy. I know it is asking a lot that reporters should do their homework, but they can start with this statute, 47 USC 222.

1) Former GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner tells me the @nytimes willfully manipulated his words in its recent hit-job piece on @SenRonJohnson
wsj.com/articles/yello… via @WSJopinion 2) The piece asserted that Mr. Johnson’s “drumbeat of distortions, false theories and lies reminds some Wisconsin Republicans” of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It then quoted Sensenbrenner saying McCarthy's name.

1) Speaking of morally bankrupt, this qualifies. And it is quite the stunning rewrite of (literally written) history. usatoday.com/story/opinion/… via @usatoday 2) WSJ editpage has consistently advocated "parliamentary procedure, the rule of law, and national unity." We in fact did it during the hardest time--when too many other institutions abandoned these principles cuz they despised the U.S. electorate's choice for president (Trump)

Imagine how helpful it would be if @JoeBiden were to show some grace, call on Democrats to stand down, practice the healing he keeps preaching. Why won't he? 2) I am struck by the responses to this from those on the left, insisting that Trump must be held "accountable"--no peace, no healing. Impeachment ho! That seems to forget the past three years, how we got here.

1) It is something to watch Democrats express shock that Republican voters won't just trust the ballot counting. Especially because it was Democrats who set the stage for this lack of trust in the system. Remember . . . 2) It was Hillary/DNC that coopted FBI to try to run out a duly elected president last time. Ds insisted Rs should trust the system (the FBI would NEVER do anything bad!!!) until all the appalling details came out. It was one of the dirtiest political tricks in history.

1) Lot of folks saying (incorrectly) GOP wants to both "count" and "stop" ballots at same time. Let's be more precise. There are three categories. a) Rs calling to count votes that came in by election day or before, per state law. This is obvious. 2) b) R's calling to halt votes until GOP observers given access to vote counting. No one is suggesting these votes not be counted, only that Rs be allowed to witness the counting. Why not? Transparency is good. Will raise confidence in outcome.

1) I am legitimately interested/confused by this. I checked, and the top number is indeed Wisconsin's active registered voter number as of Nov. 1. The bottom is approx. what has been counted. That is a (not feasible) 89% turnout.

https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/1324039094524137472

2) The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is claiming a 71% state turnout. I'm not sure where it gets this, but that would make more sense, given even populous Milwaukee didn't exceed 83% turnout, and Dane lower. (Do math on what rest of state wud need to bump up state avg to 89)

1) I'd note a curious double-standard, namely that @Twitter hasn't slapped a warning label on the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story. 2)The word the partisans were searching for was "confirmed." Our editpage column went up first, then the news side story. Both pieces explain that: the China negotiations were real; Hunter was involved; a document suggests a stake was envisioned for Joe; the deal fell through.

1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible. 2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.

1) @realDonaldTrump should do a virtual debate, but only under this condition: No moderator. The only rule: Trump's camera will be on for two minutes, then Biden's camera will be on for two minutes. Back and forth. 90 minutes. 2) That might prove one of the fairer and more illuminating debates in the history of the silly CPD. No moderator cutting people off or leading with loaded questions. No interruptions. And the format is one that works perfectly in a virtual setting.

1) There are two ways to think of debates.
a) Did you excite/enthuse base? On this, Trump wins. He was consistent, and made the points that he is running on in this election--law/order; economy; D corruption in terms of FBI investigation/Hunter; handling of virus. #Debates2020 2) Biden didn't help himself with base. Performance was OK, but he was forced several times to distance himself from policies that are baseline progressive demands--Medicare for All, defund police, Green New Deal. Never forget the D party is seriously divided. #Debates2020

1) BREAKING, per @CBS_Herridge and extraordinary.
So Christopher Steele's main source for the dossier? He was the subject of a nearly two-year long FBI counter-intel investigation (2009-2011), under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a "threat to national security." 2) Early in Obama admin, subsource "reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor" to Obama. Said if they got jobs in the administration and access to classified information, he could help them "make a little extra money."

1) The Johnson-Grassley report raises the many and disturbing conflicts of interests surrounding Hunter's biz dealings while Joe was veep. But it also makes clear that the Democratic nominee is not being straight with the public. 2) Joe Biden last year: "I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." That's pretty definitive, right? Yet according to testimony from former Obama official Amos Hochstein, he briefed Joe on his concerns about Hunter/Burisma in October 2015... AND

1) Hey @jessewegman !
You have two arguments. One, that the vote in NY should equal the vote in Texas. My point—that is not federalism. The question —since each state votes for prez—is do votes in texas equal votes in texas? Or votes in NY equal votes in NY? They do.

https://twitter.com/jessewegman/status/1303722577886617600

2) You argue states should wield power to name electors proportionally. But if winner-takes-all resonates with you nationally, what is wrong with states doing the same? Again, we are a federalist system. States are the voting units. I think people forget this

Not really, Ivanka. Sometimes pharma companies hit presidents hard because they abandon free-market ideals. Trump’s drug price controls have been an unfortunate exception to good policy. Us pharma rolls its money into life saving new breakthrough treatments. how about we regulate what every company can charge? Autos. Toasters. Pizza makers. I get drug prices are an emotional issue, but that doesn’t make them immune to free-market forces.

1) Actually, I don't really think the Senate Intel report deserves much attention. But since this was brought up, allow me to explain why.

https://twitter.com/JbkJbk1234/status/1295730237964193794

2) From the start, the S Intel investigation was an exercise in Burr-Warner pretending to be the last "grown ups" in the room (yay, bipartisan), even as they produced a report that was the least grown-up of any committee in Congress.

Oh, the memory hole. WaPo in Dec: Dropout Harris was an "uneven campaigner" engulfed by "internal turmoil" and "unable to provide a clear message." Today: a "vibrant and energetic" campaigner, and "vessel for Democratic hopes."
wsj.com/articles/kamal… via @WSJ The NYT last year as Harris dropped out, describing her "unraveled" campaign and explaining her aides had become “given to gallows humor about just how many slogans and one-liners she has cycled through.”