@DCGoldPants Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 (edited) Russian state radio station in WDC has to register as a foreign agent. Except for station ID, this station broadcasts Radio Sputnick 24 x7. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d-c-radio-station-russian-agent-federal-judge-rules-n1005236 Edited May 14, 2019 by LadySkinsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 privilege must be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 (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 May 14, 2019 by mistertim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 (edited) Them FBI agents probably eyerolled in unison after Barr's comment. Edited May 14, 2019 by Cooked Crack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 **** 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 24 minutes ago, visionary said: 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Not a fan of police brutality, but...I hope he resists if he gets arrested some day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 (edited) Edited May 15, 2019 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 So **** America and her interests huh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 I thought he was one of the people who was anti-Trump and a voice of reason. I guess we know his price now. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 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?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now