A way for Trump to (legitimately) get out of the dinner?
Really, really suss as far as I’m concerned 
From NYTimes link above (posted 3 mins ago):
President Trump posted on social media: “Quite an evening in D.C. Secret Service and Law Enforcement did a fantastic job. They acted quickly and bravely. The shooter has been apprehended, and I have recommended that we ‘LET THE SHOW GO ON’ but will entirely be guided by Law Enforcement. They will make a decision shortly. Regardless of that decision, the evening will be much different than planned, and we’ll just, plain, have to do it again.”
Maybe a Doper who follows truth social can confirm?
Just in on CNN (9:42 pm EDT): Trump has stated that he will speak from the White House in 30 minutes.
Whoop-de-fuck.
Sorry I’ll miss that. I have to clean my toenails.
And those litter boxes won’t clean themselves.
Hey, don’t shoot the messenger!
As for me, I’ve got a crossword puzzle that badly needs completing.
I’m guessing we will hear about how things like this could never happen if he can just build his big, beautiful ballroom. It certainly won’t be about his concern for “the enemy of the people” who were gathered there.
That’s reasonable.
Seems to me that security worked as designed tonight.
The GOP wants us to have the right to carry loaded weapons around D.C.
Check.
As Trump says regarding nuclear weapons, there’s not much point in having the weapon and not using same.
Check.
The GOP also apparently wants there to be security checkpoints which are the point past which you cannot shoot people. That worked as well.
I shouldn’t be too cynical. This kind of security checkpoint is a reasonable attempt to isolate where shooting occurs from where POTUS is. Given that POTUS is an extremely dangerous job, it may make sense.
I took one for the team and watched a couple minutes of it. The look on Markwayne Mullin’s face when the Dumpster mentioned The Ballroom was priceless: “Why am I standing here with this guy?”
FYI Rachel Maddow addressed this this evening on her show. Kristi is still living in the coast guard commander’s house and does not plan to leave. The coast guard commander has said that he would like to move in, but I guess he is SOL.
Comey has been indicted again:
Keep on trying, I’m sure he’s guilty of something.
He’s guilty of throwing the election Trump"s way the first go around.
It appears this indictment is not for the charge of lying to Congress that was the reason for the previous one. Instead, this is related to the post Comey made of the seashells on the beach saying “86 47”.
One of the reader comments on the story was this truly stupid one:
I tried to reply to him, but you have to create an account to do so…so I’ll post it here instead:
How do you prove someone didn’t commit a crime? Which is why our legal system doesn’t work that way.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing they could have indicted him for. I expect the charge to get dismissed forthwith on First Amendment grounds. But I guess the harassment is the point.
The justice system does not work that way!
Yes, they’re discussing that on CNN now. (I’m tuned in because I want to hear King Charles’ address to Congress.) One Republican congresscritter (don’t know whether a House member or a Senator) said, “I worked in a restaurant and I know what ‘86’ means. It means to kill an order. That ‘86 47’ is a call to violence.”
I disagree. When a diner order is 86’ed it is just not served. It is not taken out back and shot. That congresscritter is really stretching.
Besides, whatever happened to the First Amendment?
Based on what I’m hearing on CNN, that’s exactly the point. Make Mr. Comey spend yet more money on lawyers to defend this charge, to the point where he can no longer afford to defend. Break him, in other words.
I only hope that some judge looks at the charge and says, “You’ve gotta be kidding me. Dismissed on First Amendment grounds.”
And of course these are the same people who came up with some convoluted code for pizza orders as specific instructions for child abuse (in Pizzagate) but who also disregard the plain language used by Trump when he talks openly about sexually assaulting women. Is 8647 a call to violence? Prove it.
I am not a lawyer but I would argue that 8647 doesn’t necessarily mean anything and/or that it is meant as a joke (see the recent Afroman case for much more explicit examples although that was a civil case) and Trump needs to get a sense of humor. Trump is also doing a great job of promoting 8647 via the Streisand Effect and I imagine it will become a symbol of resistance once this latest case is laughed out of court.