DC Tom

Only because there's no middle-class left to tax. Actually, they don't. They're just that bad.

Yes.

They paid individuals to create false documentation justifying preferential admissions treatment, including, as I understand it, the granting of sports scholarships. It's not illegal to pay to get in to a school - I did it, paid grad school out of my own pocket, to side-step admissions bull####. What I didn't do is falsify my scholastic record and GREs, though.

An artificial intelligence that can define what a "catch" is in football.

There's a reason I only sign up for PPOs. I don't need an overworked PCP telling me something is nothing and refusing to give me a referral for years for something that'll kill me. I can decide to see a specialist all on my own. My sister-in-law has been waiting years for a referral to a pulmonologist for COPD - at this rate, she'll get one when she dies. I would be entirely unsurprised if sports medicine staff on football teams did the same. Particularly as they're specialists in sports medicine, and not oncologists. And are responsible to the team and not the players, and have a primary goal of getting players on the field even if they have to hand out opioids like candy to do it. Williams is a mammoth idiot to think a drug-pushing staff orthopedist is going to refer him for anything.

I can't begin to imagine how the Redskins' staff dermatologist could have possibly misdiagnosed this.

"Think of socialism like a fancy baked good?" ?

Thank you.

Schiff has immunity. Members of Congress get blanket immunity for statements made in their official capacity, in order to prevent exactly what you're advocating: political persecution using the justice system of Congressional opposition to the executive

It depends. Instead, let's say you send malicious code to blow up Iranian centrifuges. Act of war? The Iranians thing so. Levying war? Maybe. Actual "war?" We don't think so. Or, let's say you freeze Japanese assets and embargo oil exports to them after they invade Indochina. Act of war? The Japanese thought so. We, on the other hand, insist it was Pearl Harbor. Or let's say you embargo all trade with Great Britain from continental Europe? England thought that was an act of war. Napoleon, not so much. Or let's say you shave the beards of Temujin's ambassadors... These considerations are neither new, nor clear-cut.

You're oversimplifying a good number of legal, philosophical, and practical issues that I don't have time to address right now aside from pointing out that you still don't want to be referencing that ####### Berkowitz to make that point.

Actually, that's a book review of a book by Bruce Berkowitz. Which is on my bookshelf. I've read it. Berkowitz is an #######. If that's your source for defining "treason," you have much bigger, Tiberius-shaped issues.

Fact check this, NYT.

And this is fundamentally dishonest, since it's the Senate that renders the verdict. White House is trying to cloud the issue.

Well then you can link to it, can't you?

It kind-of depends on whether you think "by force" applies to "to destroy" alone, or to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy" together. Given that the title of the code is "Seditious Conspiracy," I'd take the position that force is not a necessary element of sedition, as you can have a conspiracy without force involved.

Fact: Pelosi's inquiry is the first "presidential impeachment inquiry" to be authorized by anybody. That, alone, demonstrates how farcical this is. They're putting on show votes to authorize something that doesn't need to be authorized.

And what would that be?

Is it the 12th yet?

Well, considering that using an "inappropriate pronoun" can be considered a hate crime, they're already regulating speech.

Not at CBS, they don't.

By posting adds on Facebook?

This would be correct.

She's going to be whining about how the Russians stole the election from her even before the primaries start.