Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ffr

(22,669 posts) Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:02 PM Mar 2019

List of 81 names/entities, "just a start" for House Judiciary Committee

Link to tweet

The 81 names outlined today by @HouseJudiciary is "just the start," a committee source tells NBC. The source says “that this was the first phase of document requests. We have more letters coming soon.” - w/ @mikememoli

#69. Trump Transition - (Chairman of Trump Transition -- VP elect, Mike Pence)

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

List of 81 names/entities, "just a start" for House Judiciary Committee (Original Post) ffr Mar 2019 OP

When 81 names is "just a start," what will be the end? 200? 500? 1,000? royable Mar 2019 #1

Start a pool. nt Wednesdays Mar 2019 #2

I never was one for betting, but if someone else would like to start a pool, they're welcome to. royable Mar 2019 #3

royable

(1,264 posts)

1. When 81 names is "just a start," what will be the end? 200? 500? 1,000?

Reply to ffr (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:08 PM

Mar 2019

I vote for 473.

Wednesdays

(17,342 posts)

2. Start a pool. nt

Reply to royable (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:45 PM

Mar 2019

royable

(1,264 posts)

3. I never was one for betting, but if someone else would like to start a pool, they're welcome to.

Reply to Wednesdays (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 08:56 PM

Mar 2019

I was thinking, I wonder how many of the name, many names that Rachel Maddow would display, of people who had left the drumpf administration*, are on the list of 81? Not that I have enough energy to look up the information and figure it out... Those people would have had more access to the inside scoop, or two-scoop, as it were.

Reply to this discussion