Califan007 The Constipated

Wait, we already traded Pickisin to the Eagles?...

Looks like our next draft player is Pickisin from University of Chicago...Woo!!

Please pick a QB Falcons!!

But you can't spoil the draft selection if you wait until after it's announced...

Here in the Tailgate forum we're talking about Pecker...while over in the Stadium forum we're talking about Penix. And meanwhile, on the Congress thread we're talking about Johnson. There's no way you can convince me there isn't a God lol...

7:00 pm? (I'm just guessing lol)...

If Cousins was upset with the sexy, skimpy uniforms our cheerleaders were wearing, he's gonna freak out completely knowing that he'll have Penix right behind him all season.

And if you don't know what's wrong and can't fix it, and actually make it worse, you're Dan Snyder.

They're saying on Twitter that we have selected and it's gonna be Caleb Williams!!!! No, wait...that was the QB thread, not Twitter. My bad.

Did anyone see this? lol...I haven't been on these threads too much so could have easily missed it.

Yikes...

Lawyer asked Pecker if Trump ever expressed worries or concern about how Melania would react if she found out about the affairs...Pecker says "No." He also said he thought he was doing the things he did for the sake of the campaign, not the man and his family. Pretty much torpedoes Trump's claims that he only paid Daniels to keep Melania from finding out (which was already more or less known, but it's now official under oath).

As for the election interference trial...recent summary: Pecker (heh...pecker lol) was afraid he and the Enquirer would get into legal trouble if they paid Stormy Daniels like they paid to keep others quiet. Dylan Howard (Exec at National Enquirer) texted a relative of Trump (I think) that if Trump gets elected in 2016, "at least I will get pardoned for election fraud." Judge isn't allowing it to be introduced to the jury at the moment, guess that could change.

Recent summary: Alito: gives a lengthy list of worst-case scenarios if the president does not have absolute immunity. Lawyer arguing against that: says our judicial system has layers upon layers upon layers to keep those worst-case scenarios at bay that have worked for centuries. Sotomayer: says that if all those worst-case scenarios were to actually happen, it won't be due to presidents not having absolute immunity, but rather due to actions taken and legal decisions made that weaken our democracy that is the foundation of our judicial system.

Forgot lol...

Alito, arguing why absolute immunity could be necessary, said among other things that if an ex-POTUS can be taken to court, "...during the trial, the former president might not be able to engage in activities he wants to..." 😐

Justice Jackson throwing down logic... J: "So for private acts, no immunity. For official acts, there's immunity. So the line drawing problem we're having with the hypotheticals is being necessitated by that assumption. If official acts didn't get absolute immunity, we wouldn't have to worry about drawing the line. So we're assuming official acts get immunity. Why is it that POTUS would not be required to follow the law when he's performing his official act? We know POTUS has the best lawyers in the world, and when he's making a decision he can consult with them to know if its illegal. So how can we say a POTUS can just do any official act and be immune? What is it about POTUS as opposed to other people with consequential jobs - what about POTUS means he doesn't have to follow the law where other officials do?" Sauer: "Well Fitzgerald..." J: "That was civil. Private civil liability. We can see how POTUS is different. But about criminal liability, how does POTUS stand in any different position to follow the law if everyone else has to?" Sauer: "All the checks: public oversight, impeachment, congressional oversight..." J: "I'm not sure that's much of a backstop. You're worried about POTUS being chilled. I'm worried about the opposite effect. Knowing there'd be no penalty for committing crime, what would stop turning the oval office into the seat of crime in the country? If the potential for criminal liability were taken off the table, wouldn't that embolden future presidents to commit crimes? Once we say "no criminal liability", I'm worried we have a worse problem than any "chill".

Yikes...yikes...and yikes lol... I mean, when it comes to Christianity, politics, and mixing the two he's right. Especially about Trump and his classless bible shilling. But still...yikes.

Underrated voice...

That might just be the icing on the cake that makes him want to sign here...👍

Figured these two posts/tweets should be here...