I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that, if the DoJ is part of the Executive Branch (which it is), and the AG is appointed by the president (which he or she is), that for the DoJ to have such a rule, regardless of precedent, would constitute a conflict of interest.

Any lawyers here care to chip in?

will ask for asylum in Japan?

IOW, if it had been an option, they could have done it. But the DoJ rules prohibited it.

So therefore (maybe) they had to ignore evidence that pointed directly to him committing a crime because it was irrelevant to the case about the campaign itself interfering. But apparently some of that evidence found its way into the report anyway.

Amy's web site seems to be left over from her run for the House, but there's another site, Ditch Mitch, that's collecting money to support a Dem running against McC: https://ditchmitchfund.com/

I just found out about it, so I would think they need to be more visible nationwide.

Not sure what her status is re: being "drafted" to run against McC.

I just flipped over to Fox News to see how they were handling the scene, and the piece said that Pelosi spoke at a Center for American Progress "moments after" the debacle in the WH. I flipped to the CAP link, and she was a scheduled speaker.

Okay, so did she go there (early?) because the WH meeting was cut short, or did she know it would be cut short? I don't know, but that "moments after" comment jumped out at me.

And BTW, I'm not bashing her -- just asking a question.

I have to wonder if the Speaker is just holding off until things get to the point where she knows she's going to have enough support to pull it off. Then she'll still come across as reasonable (or something to that effect) and can claim that it wasn't her idea.

Reminds me of a technique called the "takeaway close" used by salespeople.

He was helping me out with a project, and we mostly avoided talking politics, but it turns out we both agreed on something.

We both miss the days of Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, and other newscasters who just gave you the news and let you make up your own mind, when there weren't so many talking heads making fortunes by telling viewers what they want to hear so they come back to hear more of it and watch all those commercials that are paying for it. And we miss the days when people had the common sense to be able to tell news from opinion.

I just find it so interesting that so many people seem to feel that they have to watch stuff that makes them angry, like, "okay, I've had a hard day at work and I'm home now, so it's time for my 7:00 anger session so I can get more pissed off at the other party."

Ever since, many years ago, when a Fox news director told me that, quote, a news program is just an excuse to bring an audience to an advertiser, unquote, I've had a very cynical view of the whole thing.

I don't believe it for a second. Those people have been in politics for many years and they've seen all the moves.

Like Holmes said to Watson, the game's afoot.

And we're the spectators.

Two articles on the "front page" of Huffpost just now:

‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts Laud Trump Losing $1 Billion: ‘Wow, It’s Pretty Impressive’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-friends-trump-taxes_n_5cd2f150e4b0e524a47e2e6f

Trump Dismisses New York Times Report On His Taxes, Calls It ‘Fake News’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-reaction-tax-information-nyt_n_5cd22aebe4b0a7dffcce3f16

Sometimes life is so confusing...