Trump

[Koko]

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

What's the over/under, 6 weeks?

 

 

6 weeks? I give them under 6 days.

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

What's the over/under, 6 weeks?

 

I'd be shocked if the House leadership hasn't had access to Trump's returns for a long time now.

needed to get past the mid-terms 

[Foxx]

Second loss for the Trumpster today.

 

The Special Master is done.

 

Appeals court rejects Trump lawsuit in Mar-a-Lago documents case

Quote

A federal appeals court has acted to shut down an outside review of the Justice Department’s use of nearly 3,000 documents the FBI seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August.

 

A panel of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a district court judge erred both by granting Trump’s request to block investigators’ access to the records and in her decision to appoint a special master to assess Trump’s claims that some of the documents could be protected by executive privilege or other legal doctrines. ...

 

[Cinga]

Trump Organization entities found guilty on all counts of tax fraud

The case against the Trump Organization was brought by the Manhattan District Attorney

 

So now i want to see Pelosi returns, does she declare the plane she used to taxi her home? What about the staff and other passengers? Does Biden pay tax on the use of the White House and the Beast? Hell, does the Manhattan DA that brought these charges have a government vehicle? Is it declared?

 

Does anyone realize the idiocy of this verdict and the repercussions of it? How many people for government and business are committing tax fraud? What about the government itself and companies? Are they too guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud?

[Ann]

5 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Trump Organization entities found guilty on all counts of tax fraud

The case against the Trump Organization was brought by the Manhattan District Attorney

 

So now i want to see Pelosi returns, does she declare the plane she used to taxi her home? What about the staff and other passengers? Does Biden pay tax on the use of the White House and the Beast? Hell, does the Manhattan DA that brought these charges have a government vehicle? Is it declared?

 

Does anyone realize the idiocy of this verdict and the repercussions of it? How many people for government and business are committing tax fraud? What about the government itself and companies? Are they too guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud?

So they can say they got Trump. 

 

 

 

[Cinga]

5 minutes ago, Ann said:

So they can say they got Trump. 

 

 

 

 

And how many millions have been wasted investigating him just to get a max of 1.6 million? But you're right! They got him now! 

[Ann]

3 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

And how many millions have been wasted investigating him just to get a max of 1.6 million? But you're right! They got him now! 

That is the terrible part. How many millions could have been used for locking up people who beat up elderly Asian women? Push people in front of the subway train? Looting stores?  But "get Trump" was far more important, and this is all they ended up with. 

[Foxx]

Money is incidental to the objective.

[Cinga]

44 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Money is incidental to the objective.

 

I know, here is CNN headline page right now

 

[Cinga]

BTW.... the irony of guilty on 17 counts is Quantifiably amazing!  

Edited December 6, 2022 by Cinga

[Foxx]

Coming back to Twitter? Kari Lake as his running mate?

 

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

Coming back to Twitter? Kari Lake as his running mate?

 

 

Perhaps this?

 

 

It's would most certainly make watching liberals tomorrow a lot of fun! 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

37 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Perhaps this?

 

 

It's would most certainly make watching liberals tomorrow a lot of fun! 

 

 

That would be awesomely stupid, since Speaker of the House doesn't work that way.  I hope it happens. 

[Billsandhorns]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

That would be awesomely stupid, since Speaker of the House doesn't work that way.  I hope it happens. 

Please correct me if I am wrong. But, I thought a person does not have to be a member of Congress to be speaker.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

52 minutes ago, Billsandhorns said:

Please correct me if I am wrong. But, I thought a person does not have to be a member of Congress to be speaker.

 

As a Constitutional question?  The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress.

 

As a matter of House procedure?  Yes, it's specified in the rules.  

 

Are the rules Constitutional?  Yes.  The Supreme Court has held that matters of parliamentary procedure are solely the responsibility of the houses of Congress.  So the House can as a matter of procedure declare that only members are permitted to be Speaker, and it's Constitutionally valid.

 

Similar to how the House can expel members, too.  The Constitution basically allows it to work as an exclusive club, subject only to the people voting members in and out of it.

 

And that goes a long way towards explaining why we have an oligarchy.

[Billsandhorns]

1 minute ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

As a Constitutional question?  The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress.

 

As a matter of House procedure?  Yes, it's specified in the rules.  

 

Are the rules Constitutional?  Yes.  The Supreme Court has held that matters of parliamentary procedure are solely the responsibility of the houses of Congress.  So the House can as a matter of procedure declare that only members are permitted to be Speaker, and it's Constitutionally valid.

 

Similar to how the House can expel members, too.  The Constitution basically allows it to work as an exclusive club, subject only to the people voting members in and out of it.

 

And that goes a long way towards explaining why we have an oligarchy.

Thank you

[Spartacus]

6 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

As a Constitutional question?  The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress.

 

As a matter of House procedure?  Yes, it's specified in the rules.  

 

Are the rules Constitutional?  Yes.  The Supreme Court has held that matters of parliamentary procedure are solely the responsibility of the houses of Congress.  So the House can as a matter of procedure declare that only members are permitted to be Speaker, and it's Constitutionally valid.

 

Similar to how the House can expel members, too.  The Constitution basically allows it to work as an exclusive club, subject only to the people voting members in and out of it.

 

And that goes a long way towards explaining why we have an oligarchy.

so if the House majority wanted Trump as Speaker, they could change their procedures, and Trump is Speaker 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

18 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

so if the House majority wanted Trump as Speaker, they could change their procedures, and Trump is Speaker 

 

Yes and no.  

 

A House session adopts the rules of the previous session, subject to amendment.  The amendments can be approved by simple majority.  So yes, the majority can change the procedures at the start.

 

But once in session, rules can only be changed by two thirds vote.  So unless they change them at the start...no.

 

So bottom line...yes, it could happen.  And it would be even more awesomely stupid, the House majority choosing a non-voting non-member with absolutely no knowledge of parliamentary procedure as Speaker to enforce parliamentary procedure on the voting body.  That would be an absolute "Broncos offense" level shit-show. 

[Spartacus]

1 minute ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Yes and no.  

 

A House session adopts the rules of the previous session, subject to amendment.  The amendments can be approved by simple majority.  So yes, the majority can change the procedures at the start.

 

But once in session, rules can only be changed by two thirds vote.  So unless they change them at the start...no.

 

So bottom line...yes, it could happen.  And it would be even more awesomely stupid, the House majority choosing a non-voting non-member with absolutely no knowledge of parliamentary procedure as Speaker to enforce parliamentary procedure on the voting body.  That would be an absolute "Broncos offense" level shit-show. 

yeah-

not likely that Pelosi gave a rat's ass about parliamentary procedure.

as with any high level govt office, plenty of low level dweebs to figure out the rules

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

Just now, Spartacus said:

yeah-

not likely that Pelosi gave a rat's ass about parliamentary procedure.

as with any high level govt office, plenty of low level dweebs to figure out the rules

 

She actually does.  It's where her power comes from.  

 

"Oligarchy."  It's why it stays the same session-to-session.