Jump to content

BehoId, The Underminer!

Full Members
  • Posts

    5852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by BehoId, The Underminer!

  1. It is careful to say that it isn't sure its reasoning applies to criminal prosecution during his term (he might not have been able to be indicted Jan 7) and that it might not apply to state crimes (Alabama can't pass a law that makes it illegal to eat ice cream while wearing aviators and lie in wait to spring it on him). So he's got that immunity. But for federal criminal statutes, it says go for it. With respect to the implicit assumption that everyone seems to worry about ("They'll use this as a political excuse to grab every ex-president!"), the opinion just says If that's the case, why are we looking at this for the first time after 250 years of having presidents?
  2. sad world. parents are so shitty at being parents that we debate whether it is criminal. if she had a single "i tried this thing, it just didn't work" there never would have been an indictment in the first place. instead, it's just a lady that basically didn't care about signs of criminal future.
  3. 330,000,000 people in this country and we're somehow stuck with 'my retard is better than your retard.'
  4. i don't think it would be physically possible to draw two people that look less like swift and trump edit: nevermind, that dude isn't supposed to be trump, just wearing a trump shirt. i don't think it would be physically possible to draw someone that looks less like swift.
  5. some language on that in the opinion, which is a nice exposition on the history of our laws. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 (nice): "The President of the US would be liable to be impeached, tried and, upon conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." The court looked at that language and rejected Trump's argument that the 'afterwards' requires a prior conviction with impeachment. ". . . Hamilton stress that the President must be unlike the 'king of Great Britain,' who was 'sacred and inviolable.' It strains credulity that Hamilton would have endorsed a reading of the Impeachment Judgment Clause that shields Presidents from all criminal accountability unless they are first impeached and convicted by the Congress."
  6. fn 8: "We do not address policy considerations implicated in the prosecution of a sitting President or in a state prosecution of a President, sitting or former."
  7. yeah, i expect an entirely new brand of psychological effect from killing people in a way indistinguishable from an XBox.
  8. I watched BI a year or two ago. Surprised how shitty of a movie it was. Nudity really took the focus off the quality of the story.
  9. He’s the best president since FDR, so it should be very easy to say why he’s the right choice.
  10. Hooray! A-10s are the equivalent of walking away without looking at the explosion. Kills should be with panache when possible.
  11. SPYs about to hit $500. That's crazy. It was 337 before the pandemic, 228 at the trough. so even if you bought at the very highest euphoric peak, and had to get the sads as you watched it drop 100, you're up 50% in 4 years.
  12. It’s a decent way to juice young turnout. It jumped 11 points in 2020 and they’re hoping that magic can be recaptured.
  13. I suspected that the anti-anti-TSwift was disproportionate and maybe only a dozen loud Rs said something about her and no one else cases. I had lunch in the Woodlands yesterday with some oil guys and one note of politics came up — Tay Tays effect on the election.
×
×
  • Create New...