"But wait, there's more. Former Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., will give the official Working Families Party response via Facebook Live, while Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka will deliver the Green Party's response."

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/democratic-rep-joe-kennedy-will-deliver-official-rebuttal-others-can-n842331

Couldn't Dems just release their memo anyway? What could Rs do if they did? Do any laws even apply to anything any more? Anyone understand this? Nothing happened when DiFi released Fusion GPS transcript even though Rs said no. And yes, I know that was not classified, but Nunes memo has classified info and justice and FBI are asking him not to release it, so what's the difference if he releases his or if the Dems release their rebuttal? Other than the fact that the Rs get to call the shots since they are in power? What can they actually do to the Dems if they release their rebuttal?

I am just now checking news and the crime scene has mushroomed in 24 hours. I'm trying to catch up.

bad mouthing FBI, etc. Schiff said Nunes did not even read the underlying materials that his memo is based on. R's on committee voted against letting themselves read the underlying docs that his crazy memo is based on ....okay, this is just as bizarre as it sounds. Even Burr, chair of Senate Intel, can't read the memo....
Is this making any more sense to any of you than it is to me? Or is it just beyond making sense? Chris Hayes keeps saying, "Wait a minute, are you saying....?"

Chris doing a great job tonight.

Saw The Post yesterday, and when Kay Graham said, "We publish," the theater audience broke out in whistles, cheers, clapping, stomping, and whooping, and again at the end of the movie.
What an inspiring and timely movie.

Very interesting Vanity Fair article here. Spielberg first saw the script in Feb. of last year and rushed to get the movie into production and out into theaters:

Why Streep, Hanks, and Spielberg Rushed to Get The Post to Press

"This couldn’t wait,” Steven Spielberg explained after The Post’s first awards-season screening in New York City Sunday night. Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bob Odenkirk, Matthew Rhys, and costume designer Ann Roth joined him once the credits rolled on this David-and-Goliath story, which follows The Washington Post’s Kay Graham and Ben Bradlee as they fight to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Among the more striking behind-the-scenes tales was just how swiftly this project came together.

“What could have inspired you to make a film about journalists standing up to an adversarial presidency?” panel moderator Mark Harris dryly asked. Spielberg then wowed the insider crowd by explaining that producer Amy Pascal handed him 31-year-old screenwriter Liz Hannah’s spec script for The Post a mere nine months ago.

The director was actually in the middle of post-production on next year’s special-effects-heavy Ready Player One when he ducked away to quickly shoot The Post. The motivation for his unorthodox move—and his swiftness—was the desire to “tell this story today.”

snip

“Some of the greatest stories that haven’t been told are the low-hanging fruit of our collective history,” Spielberg said, getting the discussion back on track. “The relevance is up to everybody, to strike their own balance between the news then and the news today. But sometimes bad things do happen twice.”

More at link:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/the-post-movie-steven-spielberg-tom-hanks-meryl-streep-pentagon-papers

THis is from last March, but still very timely, and is critical to understanding how deep Ryan is in, and certainly indicates potential collusion and obstruction. Lawrence brought it up three different times because he thought it was so important, and asked why is no one picking up on this? It is critical to understanding Ryan and Nunes and how deep this goes, and why Ryan will not remove Nunes, and I don't know if anyone ever did pick up on it. I copied my post from March 28 below so it's all here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028865654

O'Donnell again tonight showed clip of Ryan saying he "had to brief the speaker first" before going to White House. Asks, "Why are no reporters picking up on Ryan involvement in Nunes scandal? I’ve showed this clip three times of Nunes saying he had to brief the speaker before he did anything else, and yet no one is picking up on it."

"Ryan is at the center of the scandal. The press apparently didn’t hear it when he said it in the WH driveway when he said he first went to Ryan before going to the WH. Everything he did after that would have been at the direction of Ryan. "

"The Nunes scandal is Paul Ryan’s scandal. That is why Ryan won’t remove him. Ryan is in it as deep as Nunes is. If Nunes can lose the chairmanship over it, Ryan can lose the speakership over it. "

I have wondered myself why more aren't picking up on this, even on DU. See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028850749
for O'Donnell show video and transcript from Thursday where he raises this question of why no one seems to be picking up on Ryan's involvement and says Nunes is covering up for Ryan; that Nunes fell on his sword for Ryan.

This is very important; it means Ryan is colluding as well as Nunes! Not only colluding, but directing Nunes. Much more in the thread from the Thursday show linked to above, but O'Donnell feels it so important that he brought it up for the third time tonight.

He also had former CIA director on telling why it was critical to Nunes and Ryan to stop Sally Yates testimony

lots of people on TV reporting shithole tonight. Lawrence said it's gonna be hard to parents to explain this to their kids. But isn't that the normal these days?

What do you guys think? Trevor Noah brought this up. Wolff's book says he and those around him expected to lose.

The GOP hierarchy had good reason to collude, because they wanted to win at any cost, but why would Trump and co-conspirators collude if they truly did not want to win? Does this cast more shade on the GOP?

I have not consumed any news for 24 hours (needed a breather), so who knows what additional news could have transpired in that time. Have I missed anything pertinent to my question?

Edited to add after reading replies below:
Of course; kompromat. If he didn't want to win but colluded anyway, then this certainly strengthens the kompromat argurement, does it not?

SHe's got a guest on now talking about Watergate and how it looked when those trying to thwart the investigation looked like they are winning, because that's how it's looking now with Russia.