Let’s just call it what it is. McConnell’s rules authorize a debate, Not a trial. A trial includes evidence. Even though all agree the Senate has the Constitutional authority to make the rules for an impeachment trial, and that those rules might deviate from a criminal trial 100% expect an actual “trial.” By definition, a trial includes evidence.

As I understand it, Barr restricted Mueller to the content of the report, and in doing left him defenseless against the GOP fiction machine. It is clear that Barr set Gym Jordan with the question regarding the origin of the investigation, and Mueller wasn’t allowed to answer it.

Because he is now a private citizen, it is understandable that Rod Rosenstein is quiet at this time, but it would be interesting to know if he and Mueller had a conversation on this issue as the investigation started.

Barr claims Mueller didn’t develop a case against Trump on obstruction. However, Mueller states in the Intro to Volume 2 “... we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct ‘constitutes a federal offense.’ ... (cites source ) ... Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, the prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, afford no such adversarial opportunity for the public name clearing before an impartial adjudicator. “

Mueller says he didn’t assert crimes were committed because of the OLC position, but Barr claims Mueller should have done so, if he felt it to be true. The question for me is did Mueller decide on his own he was restricted, or did that decision come after speaking with Rosenstein?

Trump wants to build an ineffective $5B wall across our southern border. Madam Speaker understands where and when walls are effective. Locked him out of the Congress.

I assume they would be held in contempt, but with the Dems taking over in January could they just comply and reduce whatever punishment the GOP doled out? Could the Dems withdraw the subpoenas ? (Sorry if I word this poorly or imprecisely)

Somehow I see these subpoenas as a GOP temper tantrum. Am I missing something?

Just read an article at Cleveland.com (sorry I'm not good at linking) that noted the hyper gerrymandered districts in Ohio resulted in huge Dem margins of victory - on the order of 3:1 in their 4 districts. The GOP district Mathis weren't as lopsided.

Sadly unless a lawsuit is successful Ohio has at least one more election year of this pattern.

Tucked away in my morning newspaper was this headline from wire reports.

“A government computer system that interacts with HeathCare.gov was hacked earlier this month, compromising the sensitive personal data of some 75,000 people, officials said Friday....
Officials said the hacked system was shut down and technicians are working to restore it before sign-up season starts Nov. 1 for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.”

Just thought you oughta know. The Trump administration chose to release this Friday afternoon. Anybody using the exchange get a notice from our government about this?

I hope she has the strength to demand all questioning come from the Senators themselves. They demanded she appear, now they want to hide. Call their bluff. They will claim they are trying to make her less uncomfortable or toning down the political temperature in the room. Nonsense! She will be on record, probably in front of a camera. Personally, I want every Senator to speak their own words, ask their own questions and face the consequences.

Nevertheless the sycophantic Mike Pence quoted Trump in his remarks. I don't know. Seems disrespectful to me.

If I understand the GOP's interrogation of Strzok today, FBI employees and by extension law enforcement in general who participate in the election or campaign processes automatically lose their capacity to objectively conduct criminal investigatations.

If that is true, how do we interpret endorsements sought by politicians from various law enforcement groups and officials? I just wonder how many inquisitors have or are doing so this election cycle.

May need to remind them of the hypocrisy