Usually you can group 3 or so together, but working out the edges sometimes gets difficult. Other times it is pretty obvious.

For example for me the first five albums for R.E.M. and Led Zeppelin are their best albums. I hate giving up Automatic for the People but bridging to it goes through some weaker albums.

For other bands like Rush I have to chose between 2112 and Signals to make the five (ultimately 2112 is the classic Rush which I prefer).

For the Beatles you have Yellow Submarine sitting their blocking you from bringing Abbey Road into the top five. You aren't going to give up Revolver for example.

She did a nice job singing.

Haven't heard an update. Getting to the server with the Ukraine conversation should be high on State's agenda. We need to understand what happened to move forward in our foreign policy.

By the way what is seen might lead to a referral to the DoJ. Just saying.

Did it happen today and any good unbiased source on what it was?

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/12/how-antifa-conspiracy-theory-traveled-fringe-floor-congress/6620908002/


Then, shortly before 10 p.m., Brooks, the Alabama congressman, shared a link to a now-corrected article from the conservative-leaning Washington Times. The story quoted an unnamed, retired military officer saying a facial recognition firm had identified two antifa activists from news footage of the Capitol mob. The newspaper subsequently apologized to the company and, in a correction, said it “did not identify any antifa members.”

Gaetz also shared the antifa claim in his Twitter timeline. Then Gaetz gave his fiery floor speech about the matter. It was met with groans and incredulity from many in the chamber.

Rep. Jackie Speier of California, a Democrat, said in an email to USA TODAY that Brooks’ words were an effort “to spread misinformation and try to blame others for the assault on our government.” She called it “deplorable.”



Wayback machine on original Washington Times article
https://archive.is/fjjCO

Revised article - Note it still has the original antifa tag on the website location. Note how they changed the headline to "extremists" without mentioning Proud Boys et al.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/6/xrvision-firm-claims-antifa-infiltrated-protesters/

In football we just saw the equivalent.

Blake Hance was on the practice squad as a guard for the New York Jets.
The Cleveland Browns signed him for last night's playoff game. Because of Covid he never physically met his team before going in for another injured player. He blocked a very good Steelers player all night and never missed a block.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/baker-mayfield-says-he-met-one-of-his-linemen-for-the-first-time-in-the-locker-room-before-the-game-174229245.html

Blake Hance makes a difference in NFL debut
The Blake that Mayfield mentioned is Blake Hance. Just over a week ago, Hance was signed off the New York Jets’ practice squad and drove from New Jersey to Cleveland to join the team. With the COVID protocols, he couldn’t meet many of his teammates until game day, and that included the quarterback he’d be protecting.

That didn’t stop Hance from doing his job and doing it well. He came into the game in the fourth quarter after Dunn exited with an injury and spent 14 snaps blocking Cam Heyward, the Steelers’ talented defensive tackle. No one got near Mayfield, who wasn’t sacked once all night.

If all that seemed unreal, this might blow your mind: those 14 snaps were the first Hance ever played in an NFL game. In his NFL debut, Hance helped the Browns win their first playoff game in over two decades. On top of that, Monday is Hance’s 25th birthday. He’s younger than the Browns’ playoff win drought, which he helped end.

There’s still one person Hance hasn’t met yet: the head coach.

after the entire Congress was put into jeopardy. He thought this argument was a reason to not certify Pennsylvania.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/josh-hawley-pennsylvania-bob-casey-mail-in-voting-ballots-2020-presidential-election/2659177/

A 2019 change to the voting law is unconstitutional under the state law? The writer makes a good argument why it is constitutional, but a more important reason that this is insane IS THAT THIS ARGUMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN 2019. The article doesn't mention laches but that seems to be the most important factor.


The argument that U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, delivered early Wednesday in the recently-stormed Capitol building during the certification of the Electoral College revolved around the constitutionality of the state's mail-in voting. He did not challenge the state's actual election results, unlike President Donald Trump, who attacked without evidence the vote count for months.

"You have a state Constitution that has been interpreted for over a century to say that there is no mail-in balloting permitted, except for a narrow circumstances that’s also provided in the law," Hawley said.

He argued, in essence, that Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature did not have the right to pass a law in 2019 that allowed universal mail-in voting.

Instead, according to Hawley this week and the lawsuit denied by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, mail-in voting could only be allowed through a constitutional amendment.


Some legal experts disagree with that interpretation and the argument has yet to receive a favorable opinion in court.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, also disagreed in his own speech early Wednesday with Hawley's reading of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

"The law in question, Act 77, was passed in 2019 and implemented without any serious question as to its constitutionality," Casey said. "It was only after the 2020 presidential election when it became clear President-elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a little more than 80,000 votes did some Republican politicians in our state decide to challenge the constitutionality of the law."

It is Andrew McCarthy at National Review that is proposing it. It is a good idea, but obviously, the reform doesn't come soon enough for it to stop Trump abusing it. Since you can do anything you want, I would propose that a compromise to remove pardon protections with a look back time that includes the last year of Trump's administration. Normally Ex post facto is wrong, but, given the level of corruption we have seen, it should happen.

Why did Obama issue a pardon to James Cartwright? This article talks about that pardon and cites it as a political pardon. The only other example of "political" Obama pardons were the ones for drug offenders which were compassionate and smart. So smart that one person who was missed, and even a little questionable given the surrounding circumstances, was pardoned by Trump in a real big show basically sticking it in the face of Obama.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/01/25/repeal-the-pardon-power/

Lifted from Jimmy Carter's Draft Avoidance Pardon with CAPITALIZATION signifying edits.

I,DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons who may have committed any offense between JANUARY 1, 1900 and JANUARY 20, 2021 in violation of ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, LAW, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between JANUARY 1, 1900 and JANUARY 20, 2021 in violation of ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, LAW, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.

even for the inauguration. The same for Pelosi. I don't know if our Pro Temp will be seated by that time, but the same for Leahy.

I guess you could argue that it is giving in to the terrorists, but you also have a Covid reason for a more scaled down/even virtual inauguration.

The security for this event is still being provided by Trump's administration, and no one can be trusted in it.