Right before the midterms?

To ladies enter one lady leaves.

Creepy to us. Trump OTOH is daydreaming about what genetically beautiful kids they could have if Melania would just carry them to term.

Trump invited Putin to come to Washington in the fall.

lol @ all of us.

Also that clinton video tweet is from RT.

When they say fall, they mean November, right? For his tour of our election facilities? Just to inspect, make sure everything is on the up and up, you know.

Pretty much to flaunt it in everyone's faces. That's what REAL ALPHAS do ya know. That and a tour of the new house he owns.

Meanwhile R's changed the election security budget from 300 million to zero, and took out parts of the endangered species act.

Cartoons lied to us, in the end the villains win.

If I was one of those anti-Trump billionaires, I'd be interviewing these people and seeing if what they know is worth paying the NDA off, probably be a better use of money vs. campaign donations.

Haha so funny.

Russia's defense budget is 10 times higher than Holland. And the RAF could shoot the Russian air force down? Where? Over Russia and Eastern Ukraine, which is where the Russian air force would be operating if they were to fight a war with NATO if they decided to try to annex Eastern Ukraine? It's true that the Russian air force couldn't operate over Western Europe without suffering catastrophic losses but that's not what their air force is designed to do, and that isn't what they would try to do. Their doctrine would be to deny air superiority over the battle ground and rely on their air force and even more their extensive, state of the art SAM systems to do so.

It's true that the Cold War image of dozens of Soviet armored divisions pouring across Western Europe is not possible (if it ever was), but how effective would a US-less NATO be in fighting a war very close to Russia and rather far from their own countries? It's true that Russia can't project power, but to win a war in Ukraine or Georgia it doesn't really have to. The only countries besides the US that have deployed brigade or larger sized formations in war in the past 30 years over a few hundred miles away from home are the UK and France, and they only sent a division each in the Gulf War and the UK sent the same division in the Iraq war. And France and the UK sent a brigade each to Afghanistan. Would they really be prepared to send much more? Compare that to the US deployment to the Iraq war-- roughly six divisions. France and Germany and the UK can project enough force to take on Russia in its own backyard? I doubt it.

How the **** is this real life?

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/...44153156194304

Why would the DCI need to be bothered with such mundane things?

Most NDAs have a clause that information can be disclosed in the context of a legal proceeding or subpoena. Those that don't are likely invalid (would vary state to state in the US). Any NDA Trump has asked or required a government employee to sign is invalid and offensive.

Cohen was the lawyer who handled this stuff for Trump, and he always 100% overrreached and, like most to all of Trump's lawyers, played fast and loose with the law (or just ignored it). I doubt 5% of the NDAs Trump had people sign would or could ever be enforced, even prior to getting into politics, but people don't know any better.

These idiots are playing surprise games with the DNI now?

The midterms are probably a lock for the republicans now anyway. The Russians probably have all the swing district election systems hacked and ready.

It's crowded under the bus.


https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/stat...74457501716484

More like help me win the mid terms and I'll do it.

I haven't done a fifty state survey, but I would be absolutely shocked if there was even one state that allowed you avoid testifying in response to a validly subpoena solely on the ground that you signed an NDA.

Ya, my wording was clumsy, but some laws and courts are still catching up with the blight of NDAs. I think they should be narrowly applied and presumptively invalid except for things like trade secrets.

https://twitter.com/woodruffbets/sta...452882432?s=19

smh ****ing resistance

On the flip side, does that mean that disclosing NDA information under subpoena would not subject the witness to any consequences for disclosure as stated in the signed NDA?

Does that count as 1/2 a Time cover in Trump's race to beat Nixon?

If it were a real thing, like a subpoena for a confidential settlement agreement, then the party may be required to resist the subpoena in court, and the judge may allow the material to be produced under seal or with restrictions. But legitimate public interest would likely be a significant factor. Federal judges are actually pretty hostile to things being kept secret/confidential if it's associated with a court proceeding.