Jump to content

Donald Trump 2020

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1391

  • Biff Tannen

    1374

  • 4th&Five

    1222

  • WhatTheBuck

    910

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thatguy
Thatguy

Let me be candid and honest here my man. I cannot be sympathetic to your comments because this is how adult life has always been. From the moment I stepped out of my home and headed off to college I h

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

it won't matter if his taxes ever come out.  it won't matter if his taxes don't ever come out.  you wanna know why?  because we already know what's in them. since early 2017 when people starting

Posted Images

Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32432

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://deadspin.com/in-the-middle-of-all-this-did-trump-really-just-watch-1842870067

 

Quote

Being a complete idiot who has no regard for anyone but himself, it makes perfect sense that Donald Trump would join other politicians in publicly moaning for sports to return, even though doing so is a horrendous idea that shouldn’t happen for several months.

“We have to get our sports back,” Trump said during his daily “briefing” on coronavirus on Tuesday, during which he announced the United States would stop contributing funds to the World Health Organization. “I’m tired of watching baseball games that are 14 years old.”

 

 

Quote

Fourteen is an awfully specific number, isn’t it? While Trump is a habitual liar and exaggerator, there’s something about this that seems like it stuck in his head.

Why 14 years? Well, 14 years ago was 2006. On Sunday night, Major League Baseball streamed a game on its Twitter account from that year: Game 7 of the National League Championship Series between the St. Louis Cardinals and New York Mets.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32432

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

...and probably more likely to believe that the checks are from Trump himself.

i'm picturing some poor sap in Kentucky who refuses to cash the check because it had the President's signature on it, so they framed it instead.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28825

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

You do know checks can be deposited by taking a picture of them, right?

Oh, right. I haven't deposited a physical check since before that technology was available.

But upon further consideration, I'm not sure what point it would serve to wipe your ass with that check under those circumstances. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

i'm picturing some poor sap in Kentucky who refuses to cash the check because it had the President's signature on it, so they framed it instead.

per the other thread, trump isn't an official signer or whatever for the treasury acct, so his "signature" won't be on the checks.  his name will be on the memo.

with an election coming up, it almost seems like he's trying to buy some votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
woohorn

woohorn 1131

Posted
Posted
per the other thread, trump isn't an official signer or whatever for the treasury acct, so his "signature" won't be on the checks.  his name will be on the memo.
with an election coming up, it almost seems like he's trying to buy some votes.
Don't you figure it will still be his stupid fat sharpie signature (as opposed to just typed text) even if it is just on memo line?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deac_tracy

deac_tracy 516

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Fuck.  

 

 

Having a family hold up a check intended to a family member who died of COVID-19 with Trump's name on it would be one hell of a campaign ad for Biden. Just add a couple of 'hoax' and 'we got it under control' clips.

Edited by deac_tracy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, woohorn said:
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:
per the other thread, trump isn't an official signer or whatever for the treasury acct, so his "signature" won't be on the checks.  his name will be on the memo.
with an election coming up, it almost seems like he's trying to buy some votes.

Don't you figure it will still be his stupid fat sharpie signature (as opposed to just typed text) even if it is just on memo line?

yes, most likely. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19276

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I was told when dotard took away the power of the purse by using a bullshit "National Emergency" to divert funds for his wall that we need to be patient as the push back worked its way through the courts.  Haven't heard jack shit about since about a week after it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

The most Trump thing that Trump has ever done...I can't stop laughing at this.

Really, Mr. President?  You want your presidential legacy to be reduced to the memo section?  You know what?...sounds appropriate to me.  Fire up the printers! 

You're a fucking footnote...at best. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

The most Trump thing that Trump has ever done...I can't stop laughing at this.

He missed a golden opportunity.  We could have been getting these checks from the:

Temporary Relief Unified Maintenance Program Act instead of the CARES Act.  With checks coming from the rebranded IRS, now called the "Treasury, Revenue, Utilization, and Money Precinct"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5654

Posted
Posted
So that’s a ‘yes.’

So Executive Privilege is a thing I guess. I never heard of Presidential Privilege. I guess thats unprecedented and thus cannot be challenged. They might as well say, “because we don’t want to”.

Whereas, Executive Privilege has precedents and case law that will get all the eggheads in an uproar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

So Executive Privilege is a thing I guess. I never heard of Presidential Privilege. I guess thats unprecedented and thus cannot be challenged. They might as well say, “because we don’t want to”.

Whereas, Executive Privilege has precedents and case law that will get all the eggheads in an uproar.

they've said "we don't want to" way more often than they've exerted any type of legit privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45763

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

they've said "we don't want to" way more often than they've exerted any type of legit privilege.

Remember when Sessions was claiming it?  I don't think it works that way.  Unless congress doesn't enforce anything, and then yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is, in fact, the legal basis of all their privilege claims.  "I don't wanna."

right.  but to refuse a request or whatever based on privilege, wouldn't they actually have to cite a specific one?  i feel like they don't want to do stuff, then they float the idea of exerting (asserting?) privilege, but then they just end up not showing up, not submitting docs, not doing...whatever is asked of them and then oh well lol. 

obviously i'm not an attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31678

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

right.  but to refuse a request or whatever based on privilege, wouldn't they actually have to cite a specific one?  i feel like they don't want to do stuff, then they float the idea of exerting (asserting?) privilege, but then they just end up not showing up, not submitting docs, not doing...whatever is asked of them and then oh well lol. 

obviously i'm not an attorney.

Yes, you have to invoke some privilege by name.  Depending on the context, the basis or facts and theory underlying the privilege may be tested in court.  An IG investigation probably doesn't get to that point.  A civil suit by Amazon would pretty quickly.

In civil litigation, if you withhold documents based on a privilege, you have to create a "privilege log," which identifies specific documents by date, sender, recipient, copies to, and general subject matter to permit the opponent to evaluate the claim of privilege.  If you refuse to testify, the context should provide sufficient information about the validity of the claim.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34385

Posted
Posted
right.  but to refuse a request or whatever based on privilege, wouldn't they actually have to cite a specific one?  i feel like they don't want to do stuff, then they float the idea of exerting (asserting?) privilege, but then they just end up not showing up, not submitting docs, not doing...whatever is asked of them and then oh well lol. 
obviously i'm not an attorney.
To asserts privilege in the law you have to assert the privilege when the response is due (or, under certain circumstances, when it's discovered that you inadvertently produced privileged docs). You have to state the specific privilege and make a log of what privilege applies to what thing.

Executive privilege probably operates a bit differently but there are norms that are followed, such as actually invoking it at whatever hearing or in the letter saying whoever won't be appearing. That, largely, isn't what the Trump admin has been doing. The Trump admin has been saying that Congress can't make anyone appear or produce docs and not asserting any privilege alongside. Congress took the Trump admin to court over don mcgahn and the supreme court said that it's a political fight and so non-justiciable.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17036

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, you have to invoke some privilege by name.  Depending on the context, the basis or facts and theory underlying the privilege may be tested in court.  An IG investigation probably doesn't get to that point.  A civil suit by Amazon would pretty quickly.

like in 2 days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17036

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

To asserts privilege in the law you have to assert the privilege when the response is due (or, under certain circumstances, when it's discovered that you inadvertently produced privileged docs). You have to state the specific privilege and make a log of what privilege applies to what thing.

Executive privilege probably operates a bit differently but there are norms that are followed, such as actually invoking it at whatever hearing or in the letter saying whoever won't be appearing. That, largely, isn't what the Trump admin has been doing. The Trump admin has been saying that Congress can't make anyone appear or produce docs and not asserting any privilege alongside. Congress took the Trump admin to court over don mcgahn and the supreme court said that it's a political fight and so non-justiciable.

Is that the same supreme court that decided and election was not political and was in the realm of the judiciary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...