[tsrcess]

i'll echo some of the thoughts others have mentioned that something about the party position doesn't ring true. despite the "extensive legal input" (or, some words to that effect), there is simply no compelling legal reason why party would have to make the announcement they did. consequently, i think it's safe to assume there is some ulterior motives present. specifically, maybe party believes the threat will translate into some action or inaction regarding the bill, or, maybe (some way or another) someone or some entity stands to make a large sum of money (who's buying the puts? etc.)......