StrangeSox

I'm sitting on lots of long, boring conference calls lately. I guess it was worth your time to post more cheap shots though?

That's his opening statement, and then there will be questions by the Senators. Josh MArshall/TPM also has an annotated version: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/my-ann...comey-statement

GOP will never do a single thing

joke is on you if you don't use incognito to get around wapo's paywall. The Yahoo article has the full statement, but the WaPo version has handy annotations.

AP News BREAKING: Trump responds to attacks in Iran by saying nations sponsoring terror 'risk falling victim to the evil they promote.' e: for reference, on 9/11, both the President and the Ayatollah of Iran condemned the attacks and expressed solidarity with the US.

‘I need loyalty’: James Comey’s riveting prepared testimony about what Trump asked him, annotated

He testified today, and it was a ton of "no comments" from him and Rogers. This was the money exchange: https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/872483529338216448 also this one, right before it: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-you-feel-i...ring-questions/

We know reality is broken because Bill Kristol makes interesting, informed statements these days.

But he was still asking Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, and he was asking other people to ask Comey to do that as well. How is that not trying to obstruct justice?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:01 PM) But Blago is in Jail! To me, it's the fact that there was follow-up. But here was basically the line that turned the tide on Nixon (asking CIA to get FBI to stop going forward) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBvQ2bKW0AAY6Kw.jpg And we have rumors and I assume eventual testimony that the DNI was requested to also ask the FBI director to cut it out. FBI was supposed to be independent. Meeting alone with him and even discussing him is censure-worthy. But this is clear obstruction. Honestly to me it's more explicit than blagos. There was a WaPo story yesterday reporting that Dan Coats, DNI, was asked by Trump to intervene with Comey on the Russia probe. He had been overheard saying something similar several weeks back after the last time he was up on the hill, but it wasn't really reported then.

Trump also openly admitted on national TV that his motivation behind firing Comey was the Russia investigation(s).

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:45 PM) I'm sorry nuance isn't your thing, today. It's weird, because you can usually handle it. Brand is not policy platform. K? That's all I care that you take away from this. Bernie's brand was "man of the people" "not a millionaire" "one of us" "speaks his mind" "authentic" "principled", etc. Are those policy positions? That "brand" was built off of policy positions that reinforced it. He was a "man of the people" and wasn't (and wasn't for) millionaires, and it was clear from his policies. What is Schultz's brand, what is supposed to be exciting about it, what are the tangible effects people should care about? Because I'm pretty sure "billionaire white guy CEO with zero government or public service background" isn't going to be the brand that the progressive wing of the party rallies behind. There are going to be annoying purity progressives out there for sure who won't really accept any candidate and only need one reason not to vote for someone. But there are plenty of less rigidly pure progressives who nonetheless would be pretty unhappy with more centrist technocracy behind a billionaire CEO figurehead. Dismissing those people, even if you don't think they're being rational or whatever, is only going to deepen the rift in the Democratic party. e: you were also starting off talking about policy-type positions like health care and college and social justice issues. There was no mention of "brand" when you called him "perfect"

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:42 PM) And they would be right to. Absolutely.

If this had been Clinton (or Obama or any Dem), Republicans would already be holding impeachment trials in the Senate.

I'm loving the packaging on New Bleach 2.0! Sounds tasty! Everyone pour a big glass!

We're all still living in Nixonland. QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:11 PM) Comey's statement for tomorrow is out: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/d...omey-060817.pdf Items of note: 1) Comey did tell Trump that he personally was not being investigated under counter-intelligence (in particular regarding the pee pee tapes). 1b) Trump wanted Comey to make this public. 2) Trump asked for Comey's loyalty multiple times while alone at dinner. 3) Trump cleared out the Oval Office to be alone with Comey and said he hoped Comey could let the Mike Flynn investigation go. 3b) Comey expressed his discomfort about being left alone with Trump to Sessions, who did not respond. 4) Trump repeatedly talked to Comey to complain about the Russia investigation being a "cloud" over his administration and asking how it could be resolved. 5) he was also clearly attempting to threaten Comey here:

He's got the perfect brand but you have no idea what his platform would actually be. Okay.

You already said he was "perfect" though

Is Schultz actually committed to universal health care and free college tuition for all as public policy? The most I can find on concrete political statements from him is that he was whining about the deficit and balanced budgets back in 2011, which only reinforces the point that he's just another garbage centrist. e: starbucks doesn't pay a living wage to a big chunk of their employees. Walmart actually has (or at least had, as of a few years ago) a higher rate of health insurance for employees than Starbucks. Schultz became a billionaire on the backs of thousands of low-wage workers who struggle to make ends meet. Even if he's better than others (he is!), he's still a symptom of what the more progressive wing of the party sees as a broken system.

related: Here’s a Very Powerful Study That Bolsters the Lead-Crime Hypothesis

It's not necessarily spiking due to kids in HS or college deciding to try heroin on a whim. A big part was the surge of opiod prescriptions being given out to people, turning on a steady stream of painkillers that was suddenly cut off in the last few years. People have instead turned to street drugs, and fentynal and carfentinal are substantially more potent than "regular" heroin.

I've yet to see anyone outside of Congressional Republicans who actually defends this bill.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:36 AM) I would guess less than a percent. Addiction is complicated and terrible, very many of these victims would certainly not want to be overdosing. A good many more may have gotten addicted via a pain killer prescription that sent them down a spiral. I have addiction throughout my family, and I'm terrified of getting back problems. People deserve more respect than "gotta die somehow". I remember thinking how weird it was several years back when a few of my little brother's more distant friends or friends-of-friends were being hospitalized or dying from heroin OD's. That was unheard of when I was in the same high school only a four years ahead of him, and suburban Chicago isn't exactly the epicenter of the crisis.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:25 AM) People gotta die somehow. I wonder how many of these are assisted suicides? Check out the graphs in the article. Many counties are seeing huge, huge spikes year over year. It's attributable to the opiods now on the street being tens of hundreds of times more potent. A lot of people feel the pharmaceutical companies that pushed opiod painkillers on tehse populations bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever