Plenty of countries have nationalized their oil industry. None of them reduced oil extraction.

It’s all in public.

You only heard about the bad stuff if you listen to Fox News or to other people who got it from Fox News.

Now it sounds like Dems get one and Republicans get one. Both will win the one hosted by their party and declare the other biased.

No, the debates will be hosted by CNN and ABC.

The point of the gag order was to stop Trump from intimidating key witnesses (Daniels, Cohen, and Pecker). Whether or not it achieved its goal, it’s much harder to justify after the witnesses have already testified.

Based on his Hannibal Lecter comments, I think he’s more afraid of losing the mass murderer demographic.

To most people, Gaza is not the most important issue in this election. So to them, the “bare minimum” on Gaza might be more than enough.

The point is that if Biden did something to make the GOP freak out, then it wasn’t nothin

There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.

They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.

They weren’t freaking out about Israel until Biden held shipments to Israel.

You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies

Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.

We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.

And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.

Yes, I know they aren’t in the music department.

What I said is that they could be IP lawyers (who exist in both DOJ and DHS).

Or in the case of State, likely not a lawyer at all.

Maybe so, but analysis from an anonymous lawyer is still no better than analysis from an internet stranger.

What would you think about a letter casting doubt on, say, climate change signed by 50 university professors? I would immediately check their affiliation. If they are all from the Department of Music, then their opinion is no better than anyone else’s.

Likewise, law is a highly subspecialized field. For all I know, the letter was written by a bunch of IP lawyers. In which case, their opinions on potential war crimes would not be particularly valuable.

When Israel gets what it wants

The bare minimum used to be calling for a ceasefire.

Some people will never be satisfied, so it’s pointless to try to satisfy them.

The letter, drafted by unnamed legal and policy staff

A letter written by anonymous lawyers is no better than a letter written by non-lawyers.