Welcome to Thunderdome

Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, has offered to be interviewed by House and Senate investigators who are examining the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in exchange for immunity from prosecution, according to his lawyer and a congressional official.

TPRJones wrote: The media is supposed to judge the truthfulness of things, based on available evidence, and if Spicer was saying something at the time that was clearly a lie then head shaking is to be expected.

TPRJones wrote: However the media have abdicated their integrity, so odds are it was some political point she was disagreeing on and on the whole she's just as awful as he is anyway.

Malcolm wrote: I hear that kind of dispassionate reporting really sells papers and keeps public officials honest.

Republicans said no matter what Democrats do, the outcome will be the same: Judge Gorsuch will be sitting on the court in a matter of days. All that remains is whether Democrats force — and Republicans follow through on — a major change to filibuster rules.

“I can tell you that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, countering Mr. Schumer on NBC. “How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends. How many of them are willing to oppose cloture, on a partisan basis, to kill a Supreme Court nominee? Never happened before in history, in the whole history of the country.”

A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to take Drumpf at his word when he says something controversial. Judge David J. Hale ruled against efforts by Drumpf's attorneys to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville.
...
At the rally, Drumpf repeatedly said “get 'em out of here” before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Drumpf's attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn't intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence that the protesters' injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Drumpf's words.

Leisher wrote:By the way, I've enjoyed how "Obama spied on me" has disappeared while "Russian campaign ties" has taken over headlines. Not a debate I want to get into today or over the weekend, so I won't, but I might revisit this Monday. Just interesting how the MSM has shifted gears and why in each case.

Leisher wrote: I'm getting to the point where I think it might make sense for us to just annex Mexico.

Leisher wrote: It simply boggles my mind that anyone, aside from those folks making money off of it, thinks this wall is a good idea.

I mean, if you're going to protect the border, protect it. Call in the military. Fly drones over it. Install automated turrets. Make it a kill zone.

How the fuck is some bullshit Lowe's grade wall going to keep out illegals who have dug miles of tunnels?

I'm getting to the point where I think it might make sense for us to just annex Mexico.

GORDON wrote: As effective as it would be, you just can't start plinking peeps at the border. Need some sort of active denial system... Or at the very least make entering the country illegally have actual bad consequences, like with most every other country in the world.

In the filing, Twitter said that DHS officials delivered an administrative summons to the social networking site on March 14, via a Customs and Border Protection agent, demanding that the company provide records that would “unmask or likely lead to the unmasking” of the person or people behind the account.

Twitter opposes the order on two main points. First, it maintains that the CBP does not have jurisdiction to demand such information, which includes “names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses,” associated with the account.

But its primary objection, the company said, is that allowing the government to unmask Twitter critics is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. Twitter has long defended its users' rights to free expression — a position it has held for years, notably during the widespread “Arab Spring” protests in 2011. That right, the company said, is particularly important when discussing political speech.

Troy wrote: Apparently just launched 50 cruise missiles at Syria.

Malcolm wrote: Use of chemical weapons ... and the UN does what now?