Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So, this happened.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/nikki-haley-trump-russia/index.html Nikki Haley is announcing that more sanctions are coming, but Trump hasn't actually approved those sanctions? Left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and all that, I guess. One more thing to make us look bad on the world stage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 14:15:43
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
The former head of the FBI is in interviews saying he thinks the president is like a mob boss, and morally unfit to lead the country. And it is barely news because when Trump is president there's always at least ten things way more crazy than that going on at any one time.
Spetulhu wrote: Or that other case where Cohen paid the woman to have an abortion! That wouldn't fly even as far as an affair! Is there anything Hannity's fanboys despise even more than (getting caught) having an affair and abortion? Being gay?
Being a Democrat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Nikki Haley is announcing that more sanctions are coming, but Trump hasn't actually approved those sanctions? Left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and all that, I guess. One more thing to make us look bad on the world stage.
Trump drove the push for missile strikes, but goes out wildly on his on, away from his natsec team and away from the country really, when it comes to sanctions. Which is very weird.
The only thing I can think of is that description of Putin as basically a looter. He doesn't care about Russia, only his own wealth. That would mean Putin doesn't care about losses to US military strikes - he doesn't pay for those planes himself. But he does care about sanctions that target his personal businesses.
Assuming Trump does have some kind loyalty/debt/whatever to Putin, this would explain why Trump has been willing to use missile strikes, but not sanctions.
There's a fair few entirely unsubstantiated assumptions in there, but it does align with observed facts.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/17 15:24:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I don’t know if Trump has some sort of connection to Putin. Sometimes I wonder if he just really really likes strong and powerful men (or dictators) and really really wants them to like him.
So I’m trying to decide if he’s some corrupt mastermind or just a horrible fanboi.
d-usa wrote: I don’t know if Trump has some sort of connection to Putin. Sometimes I wonder if he just really really likes strong and powerful men (or dictators) and really really wants them to like him.
So I’m trying to decide if he’s some corrupt mastermind or just a horrible fanboi.
d-usa wrote: I don’t know if Trump has some sort of connection to Putin. Sometimes I wonder if he just really really likes strong and powerful men (or dictators) and really really wants them to like him.
So I’m trying to decide if he’s some corrupt mastermind or just a horrible fanboi.
Doesn't the Trump organisation have business ties in Russia/with Russians? That might explain the hesitation towards sanctions open to retaliation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 17:11:53
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
d-usa wrote: I don’t know if Trump has some sort of connection to Putin. Sometimes I wonder if he just really really likes strong and powerful men (or dictators) and really really wants them to like him.
So I’m trying to decide if he’s some corrupt mastermind or just a horrible fanboi.
Doesn't the Trump organisation have business ties in Russia/with Russians? That might explain the hesitation towards sanctions open to retaliation.
Are you suggesting that the President of the United States may not be taking action against a foreign power because it could negatively affect his personal finances? That's just crazy talk.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 17:32:11
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
By ZACHARY WARMBRODT 04/17/2018 10:16 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Republicans are preparing to open a new front in their push to roll back regulations across the government, using a maneuver that could enable them to strike down decisions by federal agencies that reach back decades.
As soon as Tuesday, GOP senators are expected to use the Congressional Review Act to topple safeguards issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2013 that were intended to discourage discrimination in auto lending.
While Republicans in the Trump era have already taken advantage of the 1996 law to remove more than a dozen recently issued rules, this would be the first time that Congress will have used it to kill a regulatory policy that is several years old.
Now, actions going back to President Bill Clinton’s administration could be in play under the procedure GOP lawmakers are undertaking, forcing numerous agencies to reconsider how they roll out new regulations.
“It’s a hugely important precedent,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the architect of the effort, said in an interview. “It’s potentially a big, big opening.”
While conservatives are applauding the effort as a way to rein in rogue bureaucrats and boost the economy, consumer advocates are warning that the consequences could be dire.
“This takes an already incredibly dangerous law and cranks it up to 11,” said James Goodwin, senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform.
Republicans are leveraging two key provisions of the Congressional Review Act.
They’re again taking advantage of fast-track authority that allows a simple majority of the Senate to pass a resolution rolling back a rule if the vote occurs within a window that’s open for no more than a few months. The provision enables senators to avoid a filibuster.
But the more novel use lies in the law’s requirement that federal agencies submit rules to Congress for their potential disapproval. Republicans have landed on a way to target a wide array of decisions — including regulatory guidance — that haven't typically been implemented as formal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.
"You have this unimaginably large universe of stuff that is now eligible for repeal under the CRA," Goodwin said, citing a hypothetical Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace safety poster as a potential example. "Agencies don't submit all this stuff because it would be an administrative nightmare."
In the case of the auto-lending policy, the CFPB released it as a guidance document rather than a formal rule governed by the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA. As such, it wasn’t technically submitted to lawmakers for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. That means the clock for congressional review never started.
That changed last year. For advocates of deregulation, the stars had aligned thanks to the ascendance of a Republican president, Donald Trump, eager to roll back rules and the Republicans retaining control of Congress.
Toomey, the former president of the conservative Club for Growth, went on the hunt for ways the GOP could take advantage of its congressional majority to eliminate federal rules.
He found a way to wield the power that the Congressional Review Act gives a majority of the Senate to sidestep obstruction via filibuster when it comes to years-old regulatory actions.
To do so, he asked the Government Accountability Office to determine whether the CFPB auto-lending guidance qualified as a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. In December, GAO told him that it did in fact satisfy the legal definition of a rule, starting the clock for Republicans to undo it without having to seek any help from Democrats.
“When regulators regulate by guidance rather than through the process they’re supposed to use, which is the Administrative Procedure Act and do a proper rulemaking, they shouldn’t be able to get away with that,” Toomey said. “If we can get a determination that the guidance rises to the significance of being a rule, then from that moment the clock starts on the CRA opportunity.”
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, said it “is really going to open up a Pandora’s box.” Public Citizen and 60 other advocacy groups covering the gamut of finance, the environment, labor and gay rights are calling on Congress to oppose the CFPB rollback, saying it would set a dangerous precedent.
They warned it would put at risk not only protections for workers, consumers, minorities and the environment, but also regulatory certainty for businesses.
"Expanding the power of the CRA to overturn guidance from decades ago will threaten protections hardworking families rely on, making it harder for middle class Americans to get ahead and responsible businesses to follow the law," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said.
Critics have also questioned the need to undo the CFPB auto-lending guidance because the bureau is now led by a Trump appointee, acting Director Mick Mulvaney, who could eliminate it himself. Mulvaney told lawmakers last week he was reviewing the policy. The National Automobile Dealers Association and the American Financial Services Association are supporting the rollback of the anti-discrimination measure, arguing that the way the CFPB crafted the guidance was flawed.
Other lawmakers have begun to test the waters. In November, GAO in a response to a request from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) confirmed that a 2016 plan from the Bureau of Land Management was a rule for the purposes of review under the CRA. A spokeswoman for Murkowski did not respond to a request for comment.
Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has been advocating for Congress to take advantage of this deregulatory pathway in the Congressional Review Act, saying it could force agencies to comply with formal rulemaking requirements and help the economy by cutting red tape.
TL;DR: If agencies submitted rules & regulations through the proper process as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including all of the notice requirements... Congress can only overturn them via new legislation and getting that 60th Senate vote.
If, however, agencies bypass the APA requirements...the GAO agrees that it can be overturn via simple Senate majority via the CRA.
Since the there isn't much interest to pass anything meaningful this year due to the midterms, I can see the GOP going the deregulation route for campaign ammo... the trouble with this tactic is that it'll just as likely energize the Democrat's base too.
d-usa wrote: I don’t know if Trump has some sort of connection to Putin. Sometimes I wonder if he just really really likes strong and powerful men (or dictators) and really really wants them to like him.
So I’m trying to decide if he’s some corrupt mastermind or just a horrible fanboi.
Doesn't the Trump organisation have business ties in Russia/with Russians? That might explain the hesitation towards sanctions open to retaliation.
Are you suggesting that the President of the United States may not be taking action against a foreign power because it could negatively affect his personal finances? That's just crazy talk.
Won't somebody please think of the polar bears that might have to go for years without a golf course?
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
By ZACHARY WARMBRODT 04/17/2018 10:16 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Republicans are preparing to open a new front in their push to roll back regulations across the government, using a maneuver that could enable them to strike down decisions by federal agencies that reach back decades.
As soon as Tuesday, GOP senators are expected to use the Congressional Review Act to topple safeguards issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2013 that were intended to discourage discrimination in auto lending.
While Republicans in the Trump era have already taken advantage of the 1996 law to remove more than a dozen recently issued rules, this would be the first time that Congress will have used it to kill a regulatory policy that is several years old.
Now, actions going back to President Bill Clinton’s administration could be in play under the procedure GOP lawmakers are undertaking, forcing numerous agencies to reconsider how they roll out new regulations.
“It’s a hugely important precedent,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the architect of the effort, said in an interview. “It’s potentially a big, big opening.”
While conservatives are applauding the effort as a way to rein in rogue bureaucrats and boost the economy, consumer advocates are warning that the consequences could be dire.
“This takes an already incredibly dangerous law and cranks it up to 11,” said James Goodwin, senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform.
Republicans are leveraging two key provisions of the Congressional Review Act.
They’re again taking advantage of fast-track authority that allows a simple majority of the Senate to pass a resolution rolling back a rule if the vote occurs within a window that’s open for no more than a few months. The provision enables senators to avoid a filibuster.
But the more novel use lies in the law’s requirement that federal agencies submit rules to Congress for their potential disapproval. Republicans have landed on a way to target a wide array of decisions — including regulatory guidance — that haven't typically been implemented as formal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.
"You have this unimaginably large universe of stuff that is now eligible for repeal under the CRA," Goodwin said, citing a hypothetical Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace safety poster as a potential example. "Agencies don't submit all this stuff because it would be an administrative nightmare."
In the case of the auto-lending policy, the CFPB released it as a guidance document rather than a formal rule governed by the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA. As such, it wasn’t technically submitted to lawmakers for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. That means the clock for congressional review never started.
That changed last year. For advocates of deregulation, the stars had aligned thanks to the ascendance of a Republican president, Donald Trump, eager to roll back rules and the Republicans retaining control of Congress.
Toomey, the former president of the conservative Club for Growth, went on the hunt for ways the GOP could take advantage of its congressional majority to eliminate federal rules.
He found a way to wield the power that the Congressional Review Act gives a majority of the Senate to sidestep obstruction via filibuster when it comes to years-old regulatory actions.
To do so, he asked the Government Accountability Office to determine whether the CFPB auto-lending guidance qualified as a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. In December, GAO told him that it did in fact satisfy the legal definition of a rule, starting the clock for Republicans to undo it without having to seek any help from Democrats.
“When regulators regulate by guidance rather than through the process they’re supposed to use, which is the Administrative Procedure Act and do a proper rulemaking, they shouldn’t be able to get away with that,” Toomey said. “If we can get a determination that the guidance rises to the significance of being a rule, then from that moment the clock starts on the CRA opportunity.”
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, said it “is really going to open up a Pandora’s box.” Public Citizen and 60 other advocacy groups covering the gamut of finance, the environment, labor and gay rights are calling on Congress to oppose the CFPB rollback, saying it would set a dangerous precedent.
They warned it would put at risk not only protections for workers, consumers, minorities and the environment, but also regulatory certainty for businesses.
"Expanding the power of the CRA to overturn guidance from decades ago will threaten protections hardworking families rely on, making it harder for middle class Americans to get ahead and responsible businesses to follow the law," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said.
Critics have also questioned the need to undo the CFPB auto-lending guidance because the bureau is now led by a Trump appointee, acting Director Mick Mulvaney, who could eliminate it himself. Mulvaney told lawmakers last week he was reviewing the policy. The National Automobile Dealers Association and the American Financial Services Association are supporting the rollback of the anti-discrimination measure, arguing that the way the CFPB crafted the guidance was flawed.
Other lawmakers have begun to test the waters. In November, GAO in a response to a request from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) confirmed that a 2016 plan from the Bureau of Land Management was a rule for the purposes of review under the CRA. A spokeswoman for Murkowski did not respond to a request for comment.
Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has been advocating for Congress to take advantage of this deregulatory pathway in the Congressional Review Act, saying it could force agencies to comply with formal rulemaking requirements and help the economy by cutting red tape.
TL;DR: If agencies submitted rules & regulations through the proper process as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including all of the notice requirements... Congress can only overturn them via new legislation and getting that 60th Senate vote.
If, however, agencies bypass the APA requirements...the GAO agrees that it can be overturn via simple Senate majority via the CRA.
Since the there isn't much interest to pass anything meaningful this year due to the midterms, I can see the GOP going the deregulation route for campaign ammo... the trouble with this tactic is that it'll just as likely energize the Democrat's base too.
Oy vey...
it's interesting watching the GOP being unable to actually accomplish anything despite holding every branch of government and have nothing more to bring to the table in an election year than parliamentary tricks to bring to bear against administrative regulation that your average person has no clue about, as they stare an increasingly bleak midterm in the face that seems on track to oust them from their position, all while the Democrats sit there furiously but impotently eating paste.
In other news...Trump wants to transfer a US citizen currently being held anonymously as an unnamed enemy combatant to a foreign power's custody within 72 hours. That's gonna raise...questions. Mostly Saudi related questions I would assume.
Also, Greitens now accused by the Republican state AG of illegally using charity donor lists for campaign fundraiding and has turned it over to the St.Louis attorneys office for prosecution. This looks more substantial and directly related to his Governorship (as opposed to personal life) than the previous claims against Greitens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 18:43:00
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Yup... Greitins vulnerability has always been using the charity donor list for campaign funding. This will be the reason he's removed from Governorship.
Also... expect some fireworks from tweeter-in-chief...
lulz... i've only read Gorsuch's assent, but it basically boils down to "it's Congress' job to clearly WRITE IT DOWN...not ours to analyze it and 'make it fit' ".
I'm split on his reasoning, part of me agrees with it and likes the line of thinking, and the other part is going "as a judge, analysis is part of your role" (im kinda split that way on the dude in general ) Ultimately, it will be interesting to see where it goes, it certainly will make it harder to cast him as a rigid partisan, at least for a while.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I'm split as well. And I would absolutely expect analysis to be a part of any judge's job, much less a Justice. But this bill can go so far as to include jaywalking and shoplifting with the way its language is described, which would take away from its initial purpose (moving violent offenders to the front of exit queue) and become another defacto blanket for deportation, which is a bad thing no matter how you view it.
EDITS: My work computer is being janky, had to rearrange things
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/17 19:29:27
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
I thought this would come down to a 5-4 split, but with Gorsuch on the dissenting side. Overall, I think the correct decision was reached, even though the intent of the law itself is also correct (although badly worded). Send it back to the legislature, clean it up, and apply it.
cuda1179 wrote: I thought this would come down to a 5-4 split, but with Gorsuch on the dissenting side. Overall, I think the correct decision was reached, even though the intent of the law itself is also correct (although badly worded). Send it back to the legislature, clean it up, and apply it.
Has there been any word yet on what evidence they used to get the warrant for Trump's Lawyer?
Raiding a lawyer's records and violating privilege is one of those things I usually frown on, to put it mildly. Either someone had something major and very solid, or that someone was overly eager and found a judge who likes to rubber stamp things.
I think that the search itself should be examined critically, as I really don't like that setting a standard.
cuda1179 wrote: Has there been any word yet on what evidence they used to get the warrant for Trump's Lawyer?
Raiding a lawyer's records and violating privilege is one of those things I usually frown on, to put it mildly. Either someone had something major and very solid, or that someone was overly eager and found a judge who likes to rubber stamp things.
I think that the search itself should be examined critically, as I really don't like that setting a standard.
Yeah, a judge just rubber stamped an FBI raiding the office for the lawyer to the President. Just an average case not worth more than a skim-read.
You are just inventing a contrived circumstance to somehow deflect onto the FBI by making them the bad guys. Then trying to frame it in an apolitical manner that is still clearly partisan. If they did the same to Clinton's lawyer you would be defending how they must have had justified evidence for their warrant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 22:11:22
I'm just going to guess that signing a search warrant for attorney-client records, in one of the most high-profile cases in decades and involving the POTUS, was done with at least a decent amount of probable cause.
But hey, at least we know that all of the records and communications seized between him and Hannity are fair game, since he denies he was ever a client.
cuda1179 wrote: Has there been any word yet on what evidence they used to get the warrant for Trump's Lawyer?
Raiding a lawyer's records and violating privilege is one of those things I usually frown on, to put it mildly. Either someone had something major and very solid, or that someone was overly eager and found a judge who likes to rubber stamp things.
I think that the search itself should be examined critically, as I really don't like that setting a standard.
we probably wont see it for a while yet. Under normal circumstances, yes it woulf be quite troubling. That said, with this administration, they seem to be going out of their way to expose themselves to as much liability as possible just for giggles.
Given the channels this went through and the extraordinary targets, multiple people with far more to lose than gain if things turned sour had to sign off on this, if they had anything less than ironclad evidence I doubt they would have taken this step.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
The way I personally see the Gorsuch thing, I would think it should be easily explained in a way that conservatives would like.
The reasoning goes that illegal immigrant commits violent crime. trial costing millions of dollars. Gets deported. Comes back illegally. commits another crime. Trial costs millions. Gets deported. . .
Why not. . . arrest from violent crime. Try, jail. . . spend thousands/millions in the actual jailing costs, as opposed to potentially multiple instances of trials for crimes perpetrated by the same person??
cuda1179 wrote: Has there been any word yet on what evidence they used to get the warrant for Trump's Lawyer?
Raiding a lawyer's records and violating privilege is one of those things I usually frown on, to put it mildly. Either someone had something major and very solid, or that someone was overly eager and found a judge who likes to rubber stamp things.
I think that the search itself should be examined critically, as I really don't like that setting a standard.
Yeah, a judge just rubber stamped an FBI raiding the office for the lawyer to the President. Just an average case not worth more than a skim-read.
You are just inventing a contrived circumstance to somehow deflect onto the FBI by making them the bad guys. Then trying to frame it in an apolitical manner that is still clearly partisan. If they did the same to Clinton's lawyer you would be defending how they must have had justified evidence for their warrant.
I'm not trying to invent anything. I brought up that they either needed something major and solid, or someone jumped the gun. Prosecutors for the Government have decided to play fast and loose before, even with major players. The fact is that we don't know yet. It likely is on the level, but any time a lawyer's office is raided (and I don't care if it's the President, or John Q ambulance chaser) it should be closely examined for any kind of wrongdoing, under-the-table dirty handshakes, or questionable evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The way I personally see the Gorsuch thing, I would think it should be easily explained in a way that conservatives would like.
The reasoning goes that illegal immigrant commits violent crime. trial costing millions of dollars. Gets deported. Comes back illegally. commits another crime. Trial costs millions. Gets deported. . .
Why not. . . arrest from violent crime. Try, jail. . . spend thousands/millions in the actual jailing costs, as opposed to potentially multiple instances of trials for crimes perpetrated by the same person??
I'm pretty sure that illegals that commit crimes must first serve a sentence, then are deported.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 23:32:39
Sheesh, I never knew that recognizing the importance of Client-Attorney privilege was that darn controversial.
I just wanted to know what their evidence was, how it was gotten, and who gave it to them. I even said it was likely justified, just that these situations are pretty concerning.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So what I'm understanding is:
-Take the Democrat & Republican leadership to make two American Football teams
-Have them face off in the Super Bowl
-???
-Russia can't hack us!
I would say take them all and put them into a battle royal, but I am afraid Trump would likely win,...being the only head of state to be UNDEFEATED at Wrestlemania.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
) Ultimately, it will be interesting to see where it goes, it certainly will make it harder to cast him as a rigid partisan, at least for a while.
3100+
