TheGreatBuzz

That is classified.

I’d like to see, anytime Trump has a rally at an airport or anywhere outside, Biden buzz the crowd in Air Force One.

I know when this all started, some of the restrictions made me very nervous with the precedent being set of what the government could limit. I’m not saying this was 100% right. But I’m not sure it was 100% wrong either. I don’t know what the right solution is. Maybe it is the conservative side of me but when I’m torn, I’m usually going to come down on the side of limiting the governments power.

Seems to me not to be as relevant to the situation possibly. But I'm no lawyer.

Right. So why would Flynn have to plead guilty?

I don’t think that is true. I’ve watched every season of 24 and I now know the President can just hand out pardons without the guilty plea. That, and I don’t believe Nixon had to plead guilty to anything.

Updated with Flynn pardon: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1331706255212228608?s=21

So would that "admission of guilt" by pardoning himself be able to be used like a guily verdict in a future proceeding? Like a civil suit or a state prosecution?

I’m trying to figure out what my excuse will be once I retire from the military here soon. I don’t think “uhh....I have duty that day” will still fly.

This will probably be my best Thanksgiving yet. The reason I gave for not visiting family is actually true this year.

I'm more or less in the same frame of mind. I do caveat it with if the person was always a never-trumper like Kasich. This last election my first step of research was if the candidate ever supported Trump. If so, they were automatically off my list.

This was my response to one of my idiot friends doubting CDC recommendations:

So you would be fine if President Trump nominated Rush Limbaugh to the SC, saying that a Dem-majority Senate MUST consent to that nomination? Just making sure I am understanding you correctly. Techboy has the exact text, I’ll respond to this below. I was paraphrasing because I don’t see much of a difference in the actual text. It doesn’t say “if the Senate provides their consent”. We could argue about the exact meaning and intent of a comma much like is attempted with the 2nd amendment. But I think a solid argument could be made eit

I'd be careful reading it this way. Otherwise, "shall advise and consent" regarding appointments can be read as "they must consent no matter if they agree or not."

Dammit! You beat me to it.