I think the hearing is less about Trump or Comey than revealing what a bunch of sniveling cowards the Republican Senators are. Risch: He said I hope, he didn't order it, so how can you say he did anything illegal, because no one has ever been charged for saying they hope something.
Republicans are committed to being the most sniveling pieces of shithead filth, always and forever.
My reaction is the same as the OP -- it seems overhyped -- which I think is a bit creepy and sad for the reasons the OP describes.
That said, what actually matters is what the media decides to make of it. Nobody who has been paying attention is going to learn much of anything, but most folks aren't paying attention.
1 is right. They're willing to destroy democratic institutions in order to destroy Democrats.
The most shitty part of it is after all the years of harping on the importance of white-Europe-Anglo-people culture (variously defined) to the functioning of democracy, they've entered the coordinates for Banana Republic into the navigational computer and hit the hyperdrive button.
They're willing to destroy democratic institutions in order to because they don't actually think they're a good thing, and it seems like a simple way destroy Democrats.
My reaction is the same as the OP -- it seems overhyped -- which I think is a bit creepy and sad for the reasons the OP describes.
That was my reaction going in. I just started reading the fivethirtyeight live-blog, which is good. They make a reasonable case for why the event matters.
At the risk of being obvious, I'd like to point out that there are two key elements of democracy happening here. One is an elite-level process, one branch checking another and engaging in a "fact-finding" mission. The idea that Congress can exert a check on the executive branch -- can act independently as a coequal branch -- is an important part of our system.
But this is also a public event, as evidenced by the TV attention and the viewings at bars. This is about transparency and the right of the people to know what their government is doing. And ... it's also kind of a circus. Do we all miss the election campaign? I never thought I'd write that, but the sense of collective investment -- and that politics might be a fun, rowdy team sport -- is part of democracy, too. One question I'm left with is whether this deepens our national divide. I'm talking about the one between people who think this kind of stuff is fun and those who are turned off by it.
But mostly it just makes me loathe Comey a bit. I hope his testimony hurts Trump and is persuasive, but having him be the center of attention in this way is frustrating.
They're willing to destroy democratic institutions because they are primarily greedy shitheads who want to loot the country, the planet, and everything they've ever come across, and when they come across regular people who function like adults, they start hissing like a cat doused with water.
To somehow who grew up surrounded by old-style Republicans, the collapse of Republican support for American "civic religion" is just astounding and recent.
7 is a good point. Clearly Comey sees this as a way to salvage his legacy, and re-shape the "asshole who handed Trump the presidency" thing into "grown-up who was meticulously upright and responsible" and fuck him. We wouldn't be in this mess if not for him.
the collapse of Republican support for American "civic religion" is just astounding and recent.
I'm a bitter leftist/liberal raised by really, really bitter leftist/liberals, but it's not recent. We just talked about Iran Contra, where all those old-style Republicans shrugged and said subverting America's foreign policy as legally determined by selling arms and funding terrorists was fine and dandy as long as it was motivated by anti-Communism. Lying, cheating, and stealing, literally, were just fine.
Republican respect for 'civic religion' has been a cynical sham since at least the eighties. Any individual may not have been cynical about it, but if they stayed Republican they were at least willfully blind.
It's funny how some Senators are well-known and others you're like who the hell is this guy I've never heard of who snuck up on stage?
12: I still think this is different. For the whole Cold War, presidents pretty generally subverted America's foreign policy as legally defined. It wasn't good, but it wasn't a fatal blow to institutions or public respect for them. You've now got a president whose statements and actions on race and first amendment rights are worse than close to all the Congressional Republicans during the post war era and who is openly operating illegally on several fronts (e.g. the Emoluments Clause) and they are treating it as ordinary party politics.
OMFG. Comey just referenced "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest".
Yeah, he botched the quote and I was very disappointed the Senator didn't correct him.
Or he's the guy Trump asked to stab the archbishop?
Isn't the original quote semi-mythical anyway?
I figured he might think of himself as a martyr.
14: I think what makes Iran-Contra a bright line is the way the Republican Party stayed supportive even when all the facts were proven. George Bush's pardoning everyone wasn't a big scandal, it was AOK, out in the open, breaking the law was just fine if it's for reasons we like.
I don't think there's anything much comparable earlier -- lawbreaking was either hidden or there was bipartisan agreement that it was scandalous when it came out.
They're willing to destroy democratic institutions in order to destroy Democrats
Maybe they just don't understand that those institutions are democratic with a small-"d". Maybe we could save the nation by rebranding all our institutions, not inaccurately, as republican institutions, with a small-"r".
22: Part of the difference is it came out so soon.
21- It was in the context of a question about whether "I hope someone will do x" and whether that was really a request for Comey to do something (see 1.last)
Not sure who's up now on team coward, but his argument seems to be "Trump did a really bad job of obstructing the investigation by firing you, so he didn't really obstruct anything, right?"
Oh, now he's moved on to "But her emails!"
Oh, of course, it's Cornyn, honorary captain of team coward. This one's on you, heebie.
Kamala Harris really set Sessions up here nicely. Can't wait till all that gets unpacked.
27: if your think he's bad, you should see our other senator.
I don't watch Sunday talk shows so I don't often see McCain on TV, but he sounds like he's about 147 years old.
Holy shit, Grandpa Simpson just called for reopening the Clinton email investigation? What a maverick!
Does McCain think Clinton's email server was involved with Russia? This is sad, the guy is reading Infowars or something.
I'm hoping enough people are watching this that McCain's reputation is ruined. Everyone hears good things about him indirectly, and here he is making a fool of himself in front of millions of viewers.
34: I am not watching but people's impressions on Twitter are brutal. Did he look befuddled and unwell?
Being hacked by Russia apparently constitutes "being involved".
I'm listening. He certainly sounded that way. I thought he was having a stroke.
They're done with the public session.
Looks like the staffers won the phone keep-away game this time.
35- Honestly, he sounded like Trump- mentally incoherent, illogical statements strung together from bits of right-wing propaganda along with a firm conviction of his righteousness.
Maddow: "Whatever you think of the questions from every other Sen on the committee, they all made sense. McCain's remarks were a departure from that."
I like when he said the pee tape is real.
Old White Men Dementing: your Republican party. Sad.
The worst thing you can say about Comey is that he broke protocol and personally handed the election to Donald Trump. The best thing you can say about him is that it genuinely seems like he did that out of some mix of cowardice and incompetence, and not out of corrupt partisan fealty.
He certainly has Trump's number. None of the Republican snivelers are in any genuine doubt about the truth of his testimony: they have to keep performing, for now. But Trump will bleed support slowly and then quickly.
Trump can't bleed because he isn't a woman.
48: Do you really think he'll bleed support? I don't see much evidence that Trump supporters give a fuck about anything at all except pissing off the Liberals. And Trump is certainly doing plenty of that.
There's a hard core that'll never leave him, no doubt about it. Call it 27% -- in which case, there are still a third of people approving his conduct that can still bleed out.
These things aren't self-executing, by any means, but barring something truly unforeseen, the House is seriously in play in 2018, which is the end of Trumpism, if not (and I think not) Trump.
which, if lost, is the end of Trumpism
I want the world to go back to ordinary levels of shittiness, but I don't think that even a House win in 2018 will do that. I think it's necessary, but not sufficient.
Anyone remember a discussion around here of a post by Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare Blog, a friend of Comey, about his firing? I remember reading it a week or two after he was fired, but can't find it now.
Sure would be nice if people were as generally skeptical of FBI testimony when it relates to something other than the fake prexy.
58: In the end, I found the post I was thinking of. Here it is. I think there was some kind of discussion of it around here, and I was curious to review that, but Googling for it hasn't helped. Now that I have an actual date I'll look a bit more.
I don't know. In my trade you get a kick out of rounding off the day's work by typing "the president is a liar"to be printed in large letters on hundreds of thousands of bits of paper.
I was gripped, though also shocked by the craven dishonesty of the republican senators
Found that thread. My opinion of it is of course totally normal around here and if anything more generous to Comey than most.
Related issue: I just finished reading the 538 liveblog about Comey's testimony. It was annoying every time they brought up partisan divides over Trump. It's technically true that it exists, and it's relevant if we're just talking about elections. (But what's the point of that in mid-2017?) Mostly, though, it's annoying because any discussion of partisanship these days should include a link to that poll comparing Democrat and Republican opinions on Obama and Trump bombing Syria.
I've heard Harris spent her time setting up a take-down of sessions. If that asshole is brought down by a (relatively) young black woman from CA i will be soooooooo happy sweet sweet sweet prospect.
It is perhaps buying into a deliberate attempt at distraction from the main issue, but I greatly enjoy the fact that the president's lawyer misspelled "president" in his response to the testimony today.
63: I was amused to see Yglesias of all people pointing that out.
Just watched hariss' turn in the sun - excellent.
Just listened to McCain's questions -- bizarre.
64: To his credit, his tweet with the link to it was self-aware: I am living in a glass house, throwing stones.
66: He put out a press release about it:
"I get the sense from Twitter that my line of questioning today went over people's heads. Maybe going forward I shouldn't stay up late watching the Diamondbacks night games.
Hey look this is super useful: https://twitter.com/benwikler/status/872923148357947392
List of health care senate staffers so you can call and ask for them by name!
||
NY Times says Conservatives are projected to lose in the UK. I don't know how Corbyn will do, but, God, I hate May.
|>
69: Warren is already fighting the good fight. I guess I could bug Markey's office.
70: The Tories are projected to lose their majority but still have the most seats, so they may still control the government.
The only downside is all the BERNIE WOULDA WON that will start up again.
So does this make May look more or less incompetent than Cameron? It's admittedly a high bar.
Is it just me or does free Labour leader look like he should be one of The Chieftains?
Wow: granted they never had more than one MP, but all the wind seems to have gone out of UKIP: from 12.7% of the overall votes cast in 2015 to 2.2% so far tonight. Putting together with France, Netherlands, others (second graphic here), is it seeming like Trump is having a suppressive effect on the European far right?
Or I suppose maybe the better explanation of UKIP in this case is that their supporters were convinced of the need to aid the hard-nationalist/racist turn of the Tories as embodied in May.
He's showing the hidden downside to electing a total piece of shit.
However the government pans out, will this require some reevaluation of Corbyn's practical skills?
But I super do not understand why Tories are picking up multiple seats from SNP.
Second 80. BBC is saying Labour are picking up a lot of voters from UKIP which is confusing and worrying.
The Grauniad's results site uses the word "majority" for the lead previously held by the incumbent party, even if it's a plurality. For example, Southport, which Libdems won with with 31% over Tories' 28% in 2015, is labeled "3% majority before election". Is this standard UK parlance?
Tories are doing better in Scotland than expected, but it's been pretty clear for a couple months that they were likely to have their best showing in Scotland in 25 years. Before the election I was seeing predictions of 6-12 Tory pickups. My understanding is that it's mostly that the Tories have successfully positioned themselves as the clear unionist party. The leader of the Scottish Tories is pretty popular. But it's mostly an anti-SNP vote and not a pro-Tory vote.
The SNP landslide last time was a bit unusual, but I'm not totally sure why things haven't gone back more towards what they were before with more pickups for Labour and Lib Dems. Specifically it seems like a bunch of the historically Lib Dem vote has gone to the Tories.
I guess it's the usual if the Lib Dems are going to go along with the Tories then you might as well just vote for the Tories.
I saw something where the Lib Dems were promising to not enter a coalition. Go big or go home, I guess.
Yeah, now we're seeing multiple Scottish pickups for Labour too.
However now they're suggesting Tories might still have a bare majority in the end, or close enough to keep power, which sucks.
I'm now convinced the reason the US has a firm two party system is because Americans are too dumb to handle how things would work with three or four parties. Most people can't even figure out who's in charge when there are only two options.
They're going to hold a majority that's not really a majority because there are a handful of MPs who never vote or something? What kind of stupid system is this?
Have to wonder what a Tory government that depends on NI unionists and Scottish Tories means for Brexit.
They've already waved their ass (arse?) in Europe's face. I don't think it matters now.
88: That's Sinn Fein, the IRA party. So they don't believe in the legitimacy of UK control of NI, which somehow turns into running for office and then refusing to actually show up in Parliament.
And Sinn Fein have now won at least 2 additional seats (NI parties other than them and DUP seem to be collapsing?).
Meanwhile Trump's response to Comey coming from his attorney, not his spokesman. Auspicious!
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but his spokesman kind of isn't very good at spokesing.
And yet he hasn't been fired. Weak, indecisive leadership. Trump's reach exceeding his tiny grasp. Sad.
||
So, apparently, the number of deaths in the US due to drug overdoses was about 30% higher than the number of people killed by firearms or traffic accidents combined.
I remember when Clinton first started talking about the opioid problem, early on in the primaries, and the general reaction was some version of, "that's cute." (some version of, "that doesn't seem like a major issue" or "of course it's important but is it something that any voters will care about.")
For that matter the spellchecker in firefox doesn't recognize "opioid."
It does seem like it's gone from, "serious problem" to "really, really significant problem" frighteningly quickly.
|>
Whole bunches of newsworthy horrors are getting a free pass this week because of bigger events. Bill Cosby and that girl who talked her boyfriend into committing suicide should probably go buy lottery tickets to see how far their luck holds.
He's gone 14 hours without tweeting and the WaPost is ON IT.
And the woman who made repeated death threats to people who lost their kids at Sandy Hook.
As people know I care very deeply about killing the AHCA but I am still sick of twitterers crying distraction. Today there really just is too much to keep track of. I tried to push a little more attention to health care.
96: That's been local news here for quite a while.
89: Nearly all the NI MPs who will actually sit are DUP, who are pro-Brexit. I say this with great confidence, never having heard of any of these goddamn people 20 minutes ago.
I can't wait to learn how much I have to learn on UK electoral matters when they wake up over there.
Apparently they are awake, but busy wearing ribbons and funny hats and stuff.
Press Association just now forecasts 321 to Con., which given 6 to SF would be exactly 2 short of a working majority.
104: The relatively normal ones who comment here.
I bet his lawyers threatened to quit if he Tweeted about Comey.
Trump and the Tories have successfully revived the British coalition industry.
Did anyone else see that guy in the Elmo suit who got 3 (I think?) votes in May's district?
Northeast Fife apparently within 1 vote...
And UUP is out of Westminster once more, Sinn Fein moving up to 7. NI is now nothing but DUP, Sinn Fein, and Lady Hermon.
111: But it's down to Lib Dems vs. SNP there, so not to Tories either way.
Right. Orkney and Shetland is also Lib Dem vs. SNP. The two left in the borders are probably Tory.
How do they decide when to stop doing recounts when it's that close?
Looks like it's at the discretion of the returns officer to say when an additional recount would be unreasonable.
Apparently the speaker doesn't vote, dropping working majority to 322.
And chatter that May will resign.
The Grauniad's results site uses the word "majority" for the lead previously held by the incumbent party, even if it's a plurality. For example, Southport, which Libdems won with with 31% over Tories' 28% in 2015, is labeled "3% majority before election". Is this standard UK parlance?
Not so commonly with percentages, but yes, "an 8000 majority" or "his majority has dropped to 2000" is what we say.
It's confusing that blue is the party of irredeemable stupidity.
does it seem as if blue too smart a color for that?
I think Britain should get over its cloying traditions and start embracing international standards.
Fuck me, but are all the experts coated in shit.
I hope of course that this will lead to a postponement or cancellation of brexit but we won't know anything until the next election. Cool breakfast fantasy: that May is replaced by Justine Greening, which would leave both the scottish and english conservatives led by out lesbians.
So far as I can tell, this was a "vote the bastards out" election, like the referendum. That's why the SNP lost: they've governed Scotland for ten years.
Tories plus DUP still have a majority for Brexit.
I don't think they can postpone Brexit. They already started the doomsday clock by invoking Article 50.
But not for a hard brexit. NI is far too vulnerable to a hard border for even the DUP to go along with that. In a sense, they will go from being the most reactionary wing of the Right to being the one furthest into the future, in that the dilemma of telling the outside world to fuck off when you turn out to be utterly dependent on it is sharpest and most visible in their corner of the world.
The UK's combination of single-member, plurality-winner districts with a party system that 1- shows no signs of bowing to Duverger's law any time soon, and 2- whose parties have very different geographical distributions, results in some impressive disproportionality nationwide.
The Tories got about 1 seat per 43k voters. Labour, per ~49k voters. And the SNP and DUP only needed about 28-29k per, while the Greens got over 500k for their 1 seat.
And it was even worse last time, when SNP got a seat per 25k voters, versus UKIP's almost 4 million voters => 1 seat.
How did the DUP do so well when they're pro-Brexit and NI went strongly for Remain?
How did the DUP do so well when they're pro-Brexit and NI went strongly for Remain?
Tribalism. Pure Tribalism. They have apparently agreed to support a Tory government in return for a commitment to "no special status" for NI post Brexit. I have no idea what that means or how it's compatible with their stated opposition to a closed border.
129: Presumably they want open borders with both Eire and UK. Of which fantasy the Continent will soon disabuse them; but not soon enough.
Open border with the UK is the status quo. Open border with the Republic/EU post Brexit would require what any normal person would define as "special status",unless Brexit terms are super soft.
It's a curiosity that the future of the United Kingdom may in the medium term be determined by the electorate in Northern Ireland, whose population is less than 2 million out of 64 million. There are 18 seats in NI, of which all but one are now held by DUP, who have offered May confidence and supply, or Sinn Fein, who don't show up. Technically, then, the Tories have an effective majority so long as they can hold their own party together and don't try anything too crazy.
A senior civil servant of my acquaintance made the point than Scottish Tories, of whom there are now a few in Parliament, tend to be more moderate on all issues, but especially Brexit, than their English confreres.
133. Democratic Unionist Party. Used to be the Ian Paisley fan club. Now led by a woman called Arlene Foster, who is a bit of a dim bulb.
That reminds me of my favorite Ohio ice cream/convenience store: UDF.
Someone please explain to me: the headlines I see range from May and DUP have a deal to form a government to May will inevitably resign. Is this just a matter of changing events? And if the Conservatives do form a government, has this been close but no cigar for Labour, or do they really have more power now?
s I see range from May and DUP have a deal to form a government to May will inevitably resign.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. But only the former is a thing that is known.
And if the Conservatives do form a government, has this been close but no cigar for Labour, or do they really have more power now?
They have more power now, at least in principle, and Corbyn's position is vastly stronger than it was yesterday, or even before the election was called. That said, whether that ostensible power translates into policy outcomes that Labour would prefer is highly questionable. May is going to have to pander to the DUP and to the hard Brexit crowd to pass anything.
Kensington(!) looks to be going Lab.
137: Mostly I guess opaque internal Tory politics.
Plus purely my speculation, but it looks like adding pleasing the DUP to the list makes Brexit negotiations even more impossible than they were already, so nobody is eager to wade into that.
To be honest, I'm not sure it makes all that much difference in itself. They were still going to have to tread carefully around the NI border issues to avoid unravelling the peace process even further. Needing DUP votes may rule out certain conceivable solutions, but I can't think of any that would have realistically been on the table.
Even so, having only three votes over a majority seems very tenuous. Like maybe somebody will look reluctant and try to use their leverage to get free health care for all Nebraskans.
It's very tenuous, though by no means unprecedented - for a while John Major had a minority government, even relying on DUP votes. I'm just saying I'm not sure it's going to make a big difference to the Brexit outcome whether the DUP are formally inside or outside the tent. The same general pressures of having a slim majority and needing to accommodate near impossible demands (in the context of red lines on the single market and freedom of movement) from all sides in NI would apply.
Also, just out of 325 random people, there's probably at least four where the Russians have video of them being peed on.
It will probably also help a little in terms of Tory/DUP harmony that the Tories have swung back to full-bore social conservatism after a brief dalliance with tolerance, or at least not as much overt hatred and purtianism.
It's extremely tenuous and any number of things can go wrong. We have no idea what May has given Foster, but the DUP tends to be right of the Tories on social issues and left on economic ones. Of course they could lose two by-elections. They could find themselves hobbled by internal fighting. They could fall out with the DUP over the border. Etc. We have to wait and see.
Meanwhile, Labour has to remain mobilised. MPs have to spend every weekend talking to constituents. They have to identify with community action and anti-cuts campaigns in their localities. They have to present clear alternatives to everything the Tories propose. Etc. Keep the pot boiling.
147: What's the significance of "two by-elections"? I thought their working majority with DUP was more like 6.
Three, then. But it isn't a big ask over a couple of years. Introducing the DUP.
Any chance May will get dumped by the Conservatives after this performance?
On the other had, her likely challengers are a shower of backstabbing incompetents also, as demonstrated by her leadership victory in the first place.
149: If I'm doing the math right, 7 need to flip (and not go to abstentionists).
LAB: 262 (inc. Kensington)
LD: 12
SNP: 35
PC: 4
Green: 1
Ind.: 1 (Hermon)
That's 315, while CON+DUP is 328. 7 switching sides gets you to 322 for rainbow. Plus I have no idea if Hermon would ever join with Labour - if not, you need 8. And it doesn't get you as far if some of the flips go to SF.
But that's for a Labour-led government. I was just thinking how many you'd need to trigger a vote of no confidence/new elections.
Ah, got it. I always forget about new elections.
But it would still need more than 3 flips from CON+DUP, whether or not it's possible to form a government with everyone else. I think.
I think I was also looking at older numbers saying CONDUP (con-dupe) was getting only 325 seats.
So while we're gaming out scenarios, is Sinn Fein's decision not to take their seats a one-time thing until the next election, or can they reverse it at any time?
Presumably Scottish Tories would like to keep winning elections rather than going back to being rarer than Pandas. Like DUP there's enough of them to hold the balance of power. Is there any hope whatsoever of them having some kind of spine? Or are they like republican moderates who always cave in the end?
(I recognize that there's near 0 chance they will ever decide to join parliament and that they specifically ruled out joining to support Corbyn, just wondering about the possibilities).
They might reverse it if the queen offered them the chance to form a government. Slatepitch#
This is the brokered convention of UK politics, isn't it?
Presumably Scottish Tories would like to keep winning elections rather than going back to being rarer than Pandas.
Possibly. Or maybe they liked the Chinese zookeepers urging them to have sex.
158. It's been SF's position since 1919 as far as I know. The sticking point is taking an oath/affirmation of loyalty to the Queen.
Is the oath very specific about which queen?
What if it were an oath of loyalty to Queen?
Abstentionism has gradually weakened in SF over the years; they've taken seats in the Dáil since the 80s and Stormont since the Good Friday agreement. Westminster is a different matter, but maybe there'll come a time when they cross the water.
I daresay an oath of loyalty to Queen would be acceptable.
I, Patrick Doherty (e.g.) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Brian May and his mates, and to the immortal memory of Farrokh Bulsara (You have to be formal on these occasions), according to law. So help me God.
In fact, I think all MPs should swear this oath.
I was just trying to imagine moving to Northern Ireland and thinking about whether it would be too depressing to live somewhere where both major political parties are completely unacceptable. I guess I'd just vote for SDLP and be sad, but I think I'd find it pretty depressing.
Maybe they could just make an oath of "honest loyalty" to the Queen. Those don't actually count.
If you take the large leap of ignoring their history--which isn't hard for me to do, as a Democratic Party voter--the Sinn Féin of today doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Modulo the quirk of where they want sovereignty to lie, they seem like standard lefties.
Of course, neither SF nor the DUP were the main parties of their side recently, and that could change again. NI politics is fractious.
Admittedly, the objectionable things done by SF are a bit more recent than the Democratic party. More of the players are still around.
I kind of see your point, but in addition to the recentness, there's also all the continued lying about it that bothers me. Plus it's not just the terrorism, it's also an organized crime organization. I'm not saying I'd never vote for a former terrorist, I'd have voted for Mandela (though wouldn't vote ANC now), and I could certainly imagine voting for Marwan Barghouti on a third party if in some strange situation I was living in the West Bank and he were allowed to run, but it's hard for me to imagine voting SF despite their current policies being largely fine.
(Also for Westminster it's a wasted vote since they won't take the seat. But that's only for those offices.)
Speaking of continued lying, organized crime, and terrorism, could somebody tell me if Trump's tweeting garbage at Mayor Khan cost the Tories their majority? That seems like the kind of thing that could shift votes by reminding people of how May feted Trump.
172 Marwan Barghouti is the Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
173 I think it's largely down to May's feckless campaigning, the horrific Tory positions (dementia tax) and her horrible personality combined with Corbyn running an excellent campaign and being the absolute boy. But what do I know, I'm an American.
172: That's fair--it does violate the spirit of truth and reconciliation. I'm not entirely convinced that SF has much to do with the remaining criminal elements associated with the Provisional IRA, who seem largely marginalized. On the other hand, Arlene Foster was just meeting with a UDA head, despite there being a recent intra-loyalist assassination.
Possibly related: Today is "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" day.
With respect to Sinn Fein, I'm still wondering - could they just wander into Parliament at any time over the next year, take the oath, sit down, and vote? Or is there a specific period after the election when people are seated and after that, too late?
So: if Trump goads congress into having him testify under oath, and he lies like a lying liar throughout because he has no other rhetorical manner, then we all agree nothing will continue to happen except another norm of impeachment will be broken?