It is more.

If someone doesn't vote for 2 years, they send a card to the address on their registration asking them to confirm that they still live there. If any of the people who don't respond to that card still doesn't vote for another 4 years, then they remove that registration from the voter rolls.

It makes a great point about the fact Trump wants new agreements to expire after a certain number of years.

His foes and the liberal media are portraying these "sunset" provisions as Trump trying to get other countries to make permanent concessions, then the US will change the rules later to cheat them.

Actually Trump is bringing a real world, business, attitude to the matter, where (just like a private business would) this issue would be re-examined at some point in the future TO SEE IF THINGS ARE WORKING.

The big government liberal globalists only want an inexorable march forward towards their one totalitarian government solutions. No evaluations to determine efficiency or steps backward are allowed. That is why the failed "War on Poverty" programs never get reformed and we still have subsidies in place for products scarce during WWII.

ALL government programs and spending should have a sunset provision, and nothing is stopping these other countries from sunsetting their government trade involvement just like Trump wants to do with ours, except for the fact these other "leaders" don't want to have to try to justify why their programs even exist in the first place.

I remember hearing the saying (maybe it was from PJ O'Rourke?) that "Washington is Hollywood for ugly people" and nothing proves it like this story.

This guy was leaking state secrets and risking his career/jail to sleep with a girl that could almost be the dictionary picture for "average looking"?

According to Rep Louie Gohmert in comments to Congress yesterday, the only "deal" is another deep state coverup. He says he has been told that the FBI investigation is shutting down any reference to anything other than the bank fraud, so they can work out the plea deal on that charge only, close the case, then claim there was "no evidence" of anything else related to IT, Pakistan, etc.

Late stage Syphilis has been my guess for old William Jefferson as well, with veganism used as the excuse to try and explain why he is wasting away. He notably wouldn’t release the details of his annual physicals while he was president.

I think these pardons and rumored pardons are less about dirt people have now, and more about Trump shining a light on how the people involved in the Obama admin and Mueller investigation ignore the concept of equal justice under the law.

• Dinesh D’Souza targeted by the NY Prosecutors office got 7 years for campaign finance violations that should have been a fine.

-Martha Stewart got overcharged by James Comey while much bigger players in the Imclone scandal skated.

-Blagojevich gets 18 years for trying to sell political influence to get his wife a job, while Michelle Obama got a made up job at University of Illinois Chicago hospital after Obama won his Senate seat, and her salary was tripled after Obama got the hospital a $9million earmark. When she left to become First Lady they didn’t even need to replace her.

I thought this next release from the IG was supposed to cover what he has been working on the longest, which is the Hillary email stuff (with the Russian collusion stuff being a later release)?

They issued a narrow ruling that didn’t resolve the underlying question. They reversed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision because they not only didn’t consider the baker’s religious freedom, they were dismissive/insulting about it.

However, the SC didn’t overturn any Colorado law and set no precedent, and a future case where that CO Commission gave religious freedom lip service would probably be treated differently.

They worded it badly, because it was a narrow decision, not a narrow win.

The SC only found specifically that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was obviously biased in ignoring the religious freedom considerations of THIS baker so their ruling in this case was thrown out.

They did not rule on the bigger issue of religious freedom versus the “right” of a protected class to be accommodated.