So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?

LOL ok let's see a show of hands. Who *really believes* this meeting on board Air Force One between President Donald J. Trump and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was about *Rosenstein begging Trump for his job*?

This was a high level briefing to the President by the guy *directly in charge* of handling the declassifying/unredacting of all the DOJ/FBI #SpyGate documents.

But the NYT's was leaked a cover story abour RR plotting to get Trump impeached by using the 25th Amendment.

Trump's already given the order that this must happen. So this was RR briefing Trump just before the documents start being rolled out with 28 days to go until the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

OK this means either the rumors that they were looking to cast a non-white girl as Ciri were wrong, or the fan pushback steered them away from pursuing that idea:

https://t.co/stXtZamQcG

#Witcher #Netflix #Witchernetflix

FL prosecutor got this right. That's not a 'stand your ground' case. The guy doesn't have the hatchet in his hand and he's attempting to flee, not assauting the store owner.

Good case example of when NOT to shoot. He's going to prison.

You *might* in a looting situation following a natural disaster get away with dropping somebody running away from you carrying a Tv or something like that. MAYBE.

That's not the case here.

And the reason this is different from the most famous of FL's 'Stand Your Ground' cases, the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case, is that Martin sucker punched Zimmerman & was grounding & pounding him before lethal force came into play.

If you are going to point a handgun at someone else and pull that trigger, you had better be 100% certain you know the law in your state. This guy apparently didn't or forgot. And since it's on video & it's clear he's not under any kind of attack, he's going to prison.

Just assuming "Yeah, uh, my state DA isn't going to send me to prison for shooting this guy in the back running away from me carrying my TV/Stereo/whatever cuz hey, I have a *right to defend my property!* is....not smart.

(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?

NEW - on @skynews shortly:
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains

- No unilateral exit from backstop

- Large annexe on level playing field

.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...

... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.

Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed

I was working on something before the election that became the election...

Color revolutions are real and we just witnessed one live and direct...

1.

✔️ We have begun. It's Day 4 of the Trump Impeachment Trial 2.0. The defense is putting on their case. The first lawyer is Van Der Veen.

1/

Already this is wackadoodle. Seems like the defense is trying to tell us not to believe what we saw. This lawyer has the audacity to say that the people assembled at Trump's speech were peaceful patriots

2/

This lawyer is claiming that Trump's speech on the ellipse on January 6th was was a policy speech about "turning out strong in the next primaries" and how this was about working on voting law reform.

A mere civics lesson.

3/

The lawyer is lying. The Clinton campaign never "declared that the election was stolen by Russia."

Also, this Trump lawyer is trying to claim that democrats objecting to some of the electoral votes is equivalent to Trump's incitement of violence.

4/

As we expected, Trump's lawyers are not going to address the merits. Instead this is what-about-ism

5/

1. @JonathanTurley
Trump has only been out of office and, therefore, no longer (purportedly) immunized from criminal prosecution for ~1 month. Also, because of R delay, Garland is still awaiting confirmation. Once Garland is AG, expect a thorough



2. investigation of Trump for inciting insurrection in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Once that investigation is completed, based on the information that is currently public, there is a good chance that Trump will be prosecuted for violating

3. 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Not absolutely guaranteed. But a very good chance. The only element of inciting insurrection that is open to credible dispute is Trump’s intent. Is there sufficient evidence that he intended his speech to incite imminent

4. lawlessness? As you know (or should know), criminal intent is invariably established by circumstantial evidence. That means prosecutors must analyze everything Trump did and said (and didn't do or say) before, during and after his incendiary speech.

5. That investigation takes time. Sometimes a lot of time to empanel a grand jury and begin issuing subpoenas and seeking warrants. The fact that Trump's previous crimes, including the 10 felonies outlined in Vol. II of Mueller's report, haven't been prosecuted is irrelevant.