I would never join anything with such an ugly acronym.
2 Likes
Why ?
I’m as impartial as anyone can be. I think Trump’s an idiotic fuckwit and Biden’s a senile fuckwit.
2 Likes
Haven’t seen @Scott.Jones in ages.
2 Likes
That’s why you are there twice. You can’t refuse, refuse, that will mean acceptance.
1 Like
I last saw him on The Bachelor
1 Like
The stupidity of hiring Jack Smith has got a good chance of biting this case in the ass. I have no idea why such an important case would have been given to someone, without checking all vulnerabilities, dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. There have to be 100’s of potential special council choices that would have been better suited.
Probably your apathy for Korma.
1 Like
What? What made up shit is Fox telling you now? I assume you are talking about the Cannon hearing, but that is not about Smith, but the legality of the Special Counsel in general.
Their argument is considered stupid, but what they are arguing is that the special counsel regulation is in conflict with the appointment clause that officers of the US government need to be approved by the senate. To them, if he is independent then he is a principal of the government and that requires senate approval. If he is not a principal then he is “inferior” to a senate approved officer (the AG). And if he is inferior to Garland then he is not independent of him.
Smith did not get Senate approval so if their argument is accepted the case would fall apart. But Smith didnt because no one before these RW hacks who made up the theory in support of Trump pretended to believe that was needed. Trump tried it when Mueller was appointed and it was laughed away. He is only trying it again now because Cannon is so bad she can pretend to find validity in the argument.
3 Likes
This seems a circuitous route to concluding Cannon is incompetent at best.
Why take the chance, just stupid.
Wtf are you talking about?
1 Like
This is interesting. I hadn’t heard about that manifesto before. It’s always good to direct focus on those pullings the strings, and not only on the clowns obeying to their orders.
1 Like
I just posted a couple of piece in the Election thread about it. It’s bonkers shit. One of the thought leaders refers to it as “post-constitutional”, but this is not a fringe movement. This is the brain child of the most main stream of Regan era “conservative” think tanks.
1 Like
So, they are directly anti-democratic and want to suppress or at least deeply change the constitution. I always thought that the constitution is the holy cow in the US and that nothing can be changed?
Hence my question: can these people be charged, as they are clearly anti-constitutional? Isn’t this illegal?
We love and protect the constitution. But the constitution is what I say it is, and that can change at any moment depending on what I need to pretend it means to get my way.
The conservative movement leaders realized a long time ago that with society becoming increasingly pluralistic their goals could not be achieved through democratic means. They either had to modify their objectives, or find a way to exert power through non-democratic means. The courts were the main weapon, and now they have enough control there they are in the process of trying to govern through the philosophy of “unitary executive theory”. Even though this was a Nixon era idea that had a lot of advocates in the Regan-Bush Sr era (see Bill Barr’s role in using his office of AG first time around to cover up Bush’s role in Iran Contra because, in the words of Nixon, "if the president did it then it isnt illegal). If you said anything about this 10 years ago you would have been treated as a lunatic. They are now emboldened enough to speak about it openly.
1 Like
Would Republicans still be advocating for
Unitary executive theory during a Democrat presidency , or does ot only apply when one of theirs is in the WH ?
“Oh, we don’t mean unitary executive theory like that.”
3 Likes
Well, there it is - Presidential immunity for “official acts”. Obviously still debate over what counts as official, but with the citations for what they have thrown out they have essentially endorsed Nixon’s “if the president does it then it isn’t illegal” idea for the office.
They will probably have to go back down to the circuit court to determine what of the charges in the Jan6th case counts as “official acts” but the wording in the opinion seems to cover all of them. The constitution include what is commonly called as the “take care clause”, which requires an executive “faithfully” executing a law, but the wording of this opinion seems to reject the possibility of questioning motive to understand if acts were taken faithfully. Under that opinion, it seems like the entire case might now be gone.
3 Likes
Travesty.
How can inciting an insurrection be an official act?
3 Likes
Maybe this actually ends up helping Biden. The narrative now has to be : Imagine what this cunt could get up to next time , knowing that he enjoys immunity.
1 Like