Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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
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
Posted
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Kind of wish I was getting a paper check just so I could wipe my ass on his name after I deposited it. 

After? That would be a neat trick. Do you work at a bank?

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

After? That would be a neat trick. Do you work at a bank?

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

  • Like 2
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
Posted
31 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

Wait.  Deadspin is back?

Yup. And (obviously), they're (not) sticking to sports.

You know, the thing they were told to do which led to everyone worth a damn quitting.

  • Like 1
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.

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
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
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
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.

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Things like this will be, and already have been, forgotten.  We suck.

Sadly it's as appropriate today as it was then, except this time they're citizens

Edited by DixonHur
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. .

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
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.
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.

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.

Posted
53 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

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

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

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.

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
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
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?

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?

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

Are you referring to Bush v. Gore? Somewhat different makeup but same court. If Wisconsin, exact same.

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you refuse to testify, the context should provide sufficient information about the validity of the claim.

This was what was supposed to happen in the impeachment trial right?

Posted

Trump after establishing himself as the worst POTUS in history is now gunning for the top 10 of most incompetent leaders in world history.

 

  • Like 4
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...