@BradMossEsq You're always starting from scratch. Q is always where is institutional momentum at any given time.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel And you know well they have multiple avenues. Plug one whole, they'll shift to another source.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq Which is why you can't isolate 215 from 12333.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel True but 12333 is an EO; very hard to legislatively isolate it. Doable but not easily.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq Absolutely agree. And I think SSCI realizes that and cares, at least some there. But if Dems lose majority that will change.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Depends on who GOP would put up as next generation of SSCI members. It's a crazy political world these days.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq GOP leadership has no interest in real fixes. On that, GOP and Dem leadership in perfect lockstep.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Must come from all the Gang of 8 briefings.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq Except there's little evidence they do Gang of 8. It's been Gang of 4 since 9/11, no evidence that has changed.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel You mean Aaron Sorkin lied to me!?!? Same difference ultimately. Those briefing materials likely as dull as declassified PDBs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@BradMossEsq All that said, I think DiFi understands the problem w/EO 12333. But it is an ENORMOUS risk to try to fix it, for SSCI or FISC.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.