Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Party of law and order. Well at least he's moved away from telling Jr to ignore the subpoena. Jr pleading the fifth will just be juxtaposed with Trump saying only guilty people take the fifth.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm really really curious what the hell the Trump camp has on Graham. 

 

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

"Unless you're involved in investigating something that might expose, embarrass, or hurt the feelings of Donald Trump, then you can **** right the hell off"

Edited by mistertim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Them FBI agents probably eyerolled in unison after Barr's comment.

Edited by Cooked Crack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** Lindsey Graham. The man stands for nothing, and anything he says is followed by his backslide into the swamp.

so if congressmen or senators 'go to bat' for trump Jr, and he is eventually arrested for a crime, then they are aiding and abetting, no?

 

~Bang

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bang said:

**** Lindsey Graham. The man stands for nothing, and anything he says is followed by his backslide into the swamp.

so if congressmen or senators 'go to bat' for trump Jr, and he is eventually arrested for a crime, then they are aiding and abetting, no?

 

~Bang

 

Yeah I find it fascinating that the most ostensibly religious Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate turn out to essentially be almost stereotypical nihilists in practice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of police brutality, but...I hope he resists if he gets arrested some day.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Yeah I find it fascinating that the most ostensibly religious Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate turn out to essentially be almost stereotypical nihilists in practice. 

 

Yep. The article about the Chief Nihilist linked below is good: 

 

Nihilist In Chief

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Gaetz is a ****ing troll who happens to be in the U.S. Congress.  Let him talk to his idol Donald Trump about any perceived lack of response to Russian interference.   He would be crushed when any critical comment he makes results in Trump turning on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was one of the people who was anti-Trump and a voice of reason. I guess we know his price now. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can someone explain to me the whole "We aren't turning over any documents because congress has no legislative purpose" thing?  Is there precedence for this kind of response?  Is this even a real thing or is it just being made up as it goes in order to further obstruct?  

 

We seem to all assume this is going to the courts eventually, but is the law on this type of thing not already pretty clear or am I missing a gray area in it somewhere that lets the White house (and others) simply refuse subpoenas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

So can someone explain to me the whole "We aren't turning over any documents because congress has no legislative purpose" thing?  Is there precedence for this kind of response?  Is this even a real thing or is it just being made up as it goes in order to further obstruct?  

 

We seem to all assume this is going to the courts eventually, but is the law on this type of thing not already pretty clear or am I missing a gray area in it somewhere that lets the White house (and others) simply refuse subpoenas?

Running out the clock and maybe get lucky in the courts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Running out the clock and maybe get lucky in the courts.

 

I understand that is their strategy.  What I am asking is if there is any actual merit to their argument.  Has this been successfully argued before or furthermore, is it even up to the President and his lawyers to make the self-determination that "there is no legislative purpose?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.