The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/
Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”
Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/
Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”
^^ … a perfect example of dying in the darkness.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:26 amTrinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/
Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”
Just yesterday, friends on the left told me democracy dies in darkness...today, friends on the left tell me democracy thrives in darkness.
Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one...
He played attack?jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:23 amTrinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/
Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”
Gaetz another rich white man's entitled slow coach of a son.
Rules be Rules, unless?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am
The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 amRules be Rules, unless?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 amThe newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485
CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 amRules be Rules, unless?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 amThe newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485
Posted twice because it was so meaningful??Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:11 amCU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 amRules be Rules, unless?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 amThe newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485
If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...
Not just that, but when the Rs controlled the House, they had similar rules about what could be collected behind closed doors. Nothing but a stunt to show the OD that these Rs in the House had his back.CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:56 amPosted twice because it was so meaningful??Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:11 amCU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 amRules be Rules, unless?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 amThe newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485
If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...
This is disgraceful political theater. 47 Republicans sit on those Committees and attend the investigative hearings. A number of them were part of " storming" the hearing that they had free access to.
Thug move
Deplorables don't care about rules, facts, laws...RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:11 amNot just that, but when the Rs controlled the House, they had similar rules about what could be collected behind closed doors. Nothing but a stunt to show the OD that these Rs in the House had his back.CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:56 amPosted twice because it was so meaningful??Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:11 amCU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 amRules be Rules, unless?Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 amThe newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!
If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485
If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...
This is disgraceful political theater. 47 Republicans sit on those Committees and attend the investigative hearings. A number of them were part of " storming" the hearing that they had free access to.
Thug move
Yup, can't keep going with the diversions after that. I heard and interesting argument last night. Even closed door congressional hearings leak. Why are we not hearing exculpatory leaks? We hear (on Faux News) lies about what is going on, but nothing that we can see as exculpatory.
Well, one would think that the diversions will end, but there may well be an inexhaustible well of such.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:37 amYup, can't keep going with the diversions after that. I heard and interesting argument last night. Even closed door congressional hearings leak. Why are we not hearing exculpatory leaks? We hear (on Faux News) lies about what is going on, but nothing that we can see as exculpatory.
Perhaps an attempted diversion. I think it is more likely there is something going on in the Erdogan - Putin - Trump universe that is not yet know, with Trump looking out for his own interests. But the diversion theory certainly fits the general theory that Trump did it for personal reasons.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:48 amWell, one would think that the diversions will end, but there may well be an inexhaustible well of such.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:37 amYup, can't keep going with the diversions after that. I heard and interesting argument last night. Even closed door congressional hearings leak. Why are we not hearing exculpatory leaks? We hear (on Faux News) lies about what is going on, but nothing that we can see as exculpatory.
Small and large, there will, most likely, be attempts to divert attention.
Do we really think the precipitous timing of the withdrawal from Syria was because Trump got scared of Erdogan on that call? all of a sudden?
Or was he desperate to do something, anything, to divert attention?
Farce. Political theatre. White noise.CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:10 am Hey OS, what do you think of the Rs barging into the House SCIF with their cell phones blazing???
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-blazing/
Here's what I think: Lock them up!