Jump to content

The downfall of Lindsay Graham

Pancho

By Pancho
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 804
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexLonghorn
TexLonghorn
Sbbruin
Sbbruin

I hope every lickspittle that sucked the trump teet gets blown out. I am a lifelong republican who did NOT vote for trump the first time through because I knew he would destroy the Republican Party

brown water
brown water

Seems like there are 3 outcomes here: 1. Successfully interfere. This is a win for Graham 2. Unsuccessfully interfere but without consequences. This is a win for Graham.   3.  Unsuccessful

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well subpoena of a senator for a state criminal investigation is unusual. 

Add in that Graham can make a claim that some of the subject matter of the subpoena may be covered by the speech and debate clause, which not only includes a privilege but also an immunity from suit and testimony, it presents issues that may be scotus worthy. 

ETA:  the bottom line is that it's unusual to have such a criminal POTUS, supported so broadly in his criminality by legislators and the people.  Not even Nixon was like this, and a whole slew of scotus precedents came out of the Nixon imbroglio.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19174

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, bluto said:

Is this a common thing that’s been around forever for every high visibility politician to demand a scotus ruling for their shit? 

Seems that way. Twice gave a logical answer but these days it seems like every GQPer has the Supremes on speed dial like a bail bondsman.

12 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

onlyfans? 

Ain't no body paying money for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Seems that way. Twice gave a logical answer but these days it seems like every GQPer has the Supremes on speed dial like a bail bondsman.

Ain't no body paying money for that.

Maybe it's an S&M page? You wouldn't pay to watch someone put out lit cigarettes on old ladybugs?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19174

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

This bullshittery is going to accelerate the end of this country.

We can’t keep using the slow normal ordinary justice system to deal with giant in our face extraordinary crimes.

I agree with Twice Horn on this.  

Garland needs to be able to bring 20 charges against Trump so even if only half of them stick he doesn't pull a Durham.

He's got time.  Once all these fuckheads start to see and feel the Federal jackboot they'll start crawling back under their rocks.

Edited by Bullneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20435

Posted
Posted
On 10/21/2022 at 7:00 PM, Underdog said:

He scared.


He should be. The "Angel of Death" is coming for him:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pro-trump-rally-speaker-says-that-angel-of-death-is-coming-for-lindsey-graham-and-democrats-before-end-of-the-year/ar-AA13hzAv?cvid=6382aac437f84af89b17b800dcbb94e1#image=AA13hgOw|13

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Time was when a discrete gentleman could murmur suggestions to another discrete gentleman, and even if that individual did not respond affirmatively, there was an unspoken understanding that there would be no great fuss made about it.

RD!  Discreet!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Graham thinks that a senator can demand anything from another person without oversight because he’s protected by his job? 

We don't know for sure what he said and he's probably smart enough not to have demanded to find 12,000 votes.  But he claims that his conversations with Raffensperger related to a) whether he should certify the GA vote and b) election integrity, which are typically within the sphere of legislative activity that the Speech and Debate clause protect.

It would seem that the contents of the conversations could be obtained from Raffensperger, and maybe already has, but I'm not aware of any disclosure or reportage of that.  But even if known, unless the conversations fall clearly outside the legislative arena, Graham can't be questioned about them. And maybe can't even be called to testify (the immunity part).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25975

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Time was when a discrete gentleman could murmur suggestions to another discrete gentleman, and even if that individual did not respond affirmatively, there was an unspoken understanding that there would be no great fuss made about it.

Also, a gentleman can take a bit of a "wide stance" in a public restroom stall...discretely, of course. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Aw hell. I'll leave my profound ignunce on display.

You're usually such a wordsmith.  Would have gone unnoticed if made by dozens of other posters.  NBD.

Fucking English, amirite?

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Ummmm, I thought SCOTUS rulings had to be from the group majority, not an individual.  JFC, that fat fuck Thomas will block everything. 

I think that's the process for emergency orders. Every circuit has a Supreme Court judge assigned to it and Georgia is in the 11th circuit assigned to Thomas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Seems like the speech and debate clause defense should be adjudicated in the dc district, doesn’t it?  Anything specific to the federal gvt like that?

Graham filed suit in Georgia, in the federal district from which the subpoena issued.  That district court and the 11th Circuit have ruled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Inb4 twice explains how this is actually a good thing that shows the system works, and isn't the naked corruption that's plainly apparent

It doesn't mean much.  Fulton County responds by October 27, and the full court will decide.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/graham-asks-justices-to-block-subpoena-in-election-interference-probe/

Crazy ass Clarence can only do so much.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It doesn't mean much.  Fulton County responds by October 27, and the full court will decide.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/graham-asks-justices-to-block-subpoena-in-election-interference-probe/

Crazy ass Clarence can only do so much.

He could have just denied it outright.  Like he did with Trump a week or so ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29931

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not an attorney. It seems to me that Graham couldn't make his claim until he was actually questioned under oath. Sort of like taking the Fifth. Strange, to me, that he can defy a court in such a way as he attempts to.

And count me in with those feeling it's crazy that I have to wait on tortoise-like due process for something immediately apparent to anyone watching. I feel like I at last see a legitimate argument for an angry mob.

Maybe there should be an accelerated process for assessing crimes that endanger the republic or its institutions. Once such a crime is determined, it supercedes any legal scheduling on any docket. Decisions must be returned in a matter of days.

We have a new class of treacherous crime going on here. The criminals count on our system favoring them by giving them time and places to hide out. 

I want to smash these just like I want to smash any terrorist cell plotting against the USA.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31497

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

He could have just denied it outright.  Like he did with Trump a week or so ago.

I thought that was the full court.  I am somewhat unclear on the rules here.

Edit:  says he referred it to the court.

Edit again:  the rules https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 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...