Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This isn’t that nefarious and is some of the only believable parts of the story.  Government employees are allowed to use their work phones for personal use within limits.  For records management, it’s the employee that is responsible to back up anything off the phone when leaving a job.  When you hand the phone in, you log out of everything and you do a hard factory reset. Someone else gets the phone or at the end of its lifecycle it is disposed of.

The rules are probably different for the presidential detail don't you think?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This isn’t that nefarious and is some of the only believable parts of the story.  Government employees are allowed to use their work phones for personal use within limits.  For records management, it’s the employee that is responsible to back up anything off the phone when leaving a job.  When you hand the phone in, you log out of everything and you do a hard factory reset. Someone else gets the phone or at the end of its lifecycle it is disposed of.

I'm gonna go out on the limb and suggest that a staffer for a junior Representative has to deal with less stringent protocols than a Secret Service agent.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on the limb and suggest that a staffer for a junior Representative has to deal with less stringent protocols than a Secret Service agent.

DHS just announced this month they’d start backing up their very most senior people’s work phones.  SES and political appointees with the very top level of clearance. The fact is that the federal government is creaky, reactive, and responsive to these sorts of problems. Not proactive and forward thinking. 
 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/04/politics/homeland-security-secret-service-phones/index.html

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Won’t they have to reconvene a new committee when the new congress is sworn in regardless?

I think they intend to be done by the end of the 117th session.  But if they're not, then yes.

Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think they intend to be done by the end of the 117th session.  But if they're not, then yes.

Right it’s my understanding that the next season of Game of Insurrections is supposed to air sometime next month and I’d imagine they could squeeze the third and final installment prior to the swear in date.

If they wanted to be as petty and vindictive as their lunatic partners in that Animal House known as the Trump faction of the GOP, they should announce the issuance of their final report on January 3rd mere minutes before the term(s) of Kinzinger and possibly Cheney expire.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Right it’s my understanding that the next season of Game of Insurrections is supposed to air sometime next month and I’d imagine they could squeeze the third and final installment prior to the swear in date.

If they wanted to be as petty and vindictive as their lunatic partners in that Animal House known as the Trump faction of the GOP, they should announce the issuance of their final report on January 3rd mere minutes before the term(s) of Kinzinger and possibly Cheney expire.

No, the final report should be the week before the midterms.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

No, the final report should be the week before the midterms.

Only if there are no new developments that week in the Georgia case…or the New York case…or the Florida case

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Dumb Question Amnesty -- was he not asked already?!

Posted

First step towards POTUS/VP elections being run by U.S. Congress, not the States.  Gee, I can't possibly imagine what they're banking on in 2024.  The tradeoff was supposed to be Electoral College in exchange for individual states running their own elections to seat those electors.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

We will be a fascist state w/in 5 years.  I don't see anyway to prevent it.  

Add seats to SCOTUS or a couple of retirements / (un)timely deaths in the next two years.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Democrats/progressives don't get to do things like that because conservative feelings might be hurt, or someone might think that decorum has gone out of the window.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Democrats/progressives don't get to do things like that because conservative feelings might be hurt, or someone might think that decorum has gone out of the window.

It's time to defenestrate decorum.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
On 9/1/2022 at 12:32 PM, TexEx15 said:

 

Wow, let's make sure you answer that question you stupid, senile old man.

When Howard Stern would send Stuttering John out to ask embarrassing questions of celebs on the red carpet they were always smart enough to figure out it was a goof.  But this guy . . .

Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's truly scary as fuck.

I would hope that the minute one state's legislature votes to throw out the election results they don't like the DoJ would immediately sue.  What's the possibilities there?

  • 2 weeks later...


×
×
  • Create New...