|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/Show nested quote +President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. Show nested quote +The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land.
It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad.
|
On January 27 2018 12:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land. It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad.
I’m sure the government knows which source is real, and which one is propaganda. Except the White House apparently.
|
The bar for obstruction is considerly lower for the president, given the power of the office and control over the FBI. And McCabe nor the White House has denied the NYT story.
|
United States5938 Posts
On January 27 2018 12:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land. It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad.
It shouldn't lose its fangs. If you're just throwing your hands up and going "well everyone the libs call everything obstruction, so now nothing is anymore", that's choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if someone is wrong in labeling it obstruction(arguable), that doesn't make its inarguable lack of ethics any more ok.
|
Does anyone think they would bring up obstruction charges if they also couldn't nail down proof on why he was trying so hard to obstruct? Without additional related charges for accepting assistance from foreign nationals, the obstruction charge is going to lose a lot of its teeth.
|
WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to.
www.nytimes.com
Saw this story making the rounds. The coming reaction to it is probably more interesting than the story itself, though.
|
On January 27 2018 13:41 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 12:03 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land. It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad. It shouldn't lose its fangs. If you're just throwing your hands up and going "well everyone the libs call everything obstruction, so now nothing is anymore", that's choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if someone is wrong in labeling it obstruction(arguable), that doesn't make its inarguable lack of ethics any more ok.
See, this is the twist. You allege it shouldn't lose its fangs (the moral or logical basis) without the alternative "you should avoid crying wolf to be taken seriously when it is a wolf." Then you put the choice on the other (choosing to whitewash it), when the choice is more likely choosing to not waste your time chasing down another pointless exercise in criminalizing constitutional prerogative or prioritizing conspiratorial explanations. Then you arrive at your final level of surrender, pointing out that nothing makes lack of ethics ok ... to the guy that already called some of these charges unethical. It's a brand of 'whataboutism' that's devoid of critical thought. Compare with:
On January 26 2018 11:03 NewSunshine wrote:
Well he also unironically mentioned "the memo" as though it's gonna have jack shit in it, so I think we can safely disregard anything that leaves his mouth. NewSunshine responds:
You shouldn't disregard everything that leaves his mouth. You're just throwing up your hands and going "if he says something you dismiss, now nothing can be true out of him." You're choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if the importance of the memo is wrong, that doesn't make the unethical behavior any more ok.
|
On January 27 2018 14:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to. www.nytimes.comSaw this story making the rounds. The coming reaction to it is probably more interesting than the story itself, though.
Like husband like wife.
|
United States5938 Posts
On January 27 2018 17:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 13:41 NewSunshine wrote:On January 27 2018 12:03 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land. It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad. It shouldn't lose its fangs. If you're just throwing your hands up and going "well everyone the libs call everything obstruction, so now nothing is anymore", that's choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if someone is wrong in labeling it obstruction(arguable), that doesn't make its inarguable lack of ethics any more ok. See, this is the twist. You allege it shouldn't lose its fangs (the moral or logical basis) without the alternative "you should avoid crying wolf to be taken seriously when it is a wolf." Then you put the choice on the other (choosing to whitewash it), when the choice is more likely choosing to not waste your time chasing down another pointless exercise in criminalizing constitutional prerogative or prioritizing conspiratorial explanations. Then you arrive at your final level of surrender, pointing out that nothing makes lack of ethics ok ... to the guy that already called some of these charges unethical. It's a brand of 'whataboutism' that's devoid of critical thought. Compare with: Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 11:03 NewSunshine wrote:
Well he also unironically mentioned "the memo" as though it's gonna have jack shit in it, so I think we can safely disregard anything that leaves his mouth. Show nested quote +NewSunshine responds:
You shouldn't disregard everything that leaves his mouth. You're just throwing up your hands and going "if he says something you dismiss, now nothing can be true out of him." You're choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if the importance of the memo is wrong, that doesn't make the unethical behavior any more ok.
I see you putting words in my mouth, quite literally, to avoid the point. Stop twisting my words around for just a second, or let us both acknowledge we're wasting each other's time.
|
On January 27 2018 17:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 17:35 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 13:41 NewSunshine wrote:On January 27 2018 12:03 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land. It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad. It shouldn't lose its fangs. If you're just throwing your hands up and going "well everyone the libs call everything obstruction, so now nothing is anymore", that's choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if someone is wrong in labeling it obstruction(arguable), that doesn't make its inarguable lack of ethics any more ok. See, this is the twist. You allege it shouldn't lose its fangs (the moral or logical basis) without the alternative "you should avoid crying wolf to be taken seriously when it is a wolf." Then you put the choice on the other (choosing to whitewash it), when the choice is more likely choosing to not waste your time chasing down another pointless exercise in criminalizing constitutional prerogative or prioritizing conspiratorial explanations. Then you arrive at your final level of surrender, pointing out that nothing makes lack of ethics ok ... to the guy that already called some of these charges unethical. It's a brand of 'whataboutism' that's devoid of critical thought. Compare with: On January 26 2018 11:03 NewSunshine wrote:
Well he also unironically mentioned "the memo" as though it's gonna have jack shit in it, so I think we can safely disregard anything that leaves his mouth. NewSunshine responds:
You shouldn't disregard everything that leaves his mouth. You're just throwing up your hands and going "if he says something you dismiss, now nothing can be true out of him." You're choosing to whitewash it and devoid it of nuance. Even if the importance of the memo is wrong, that doesn't make the unethical behavior any more ok. I see you putting words in my mouth, quite literally, to avoid the point. Stop twisting my words around for just a second, or let us both acknowledge we're wasting each other's time.
That would be an illustration to prove the point. Your post lacked substance and could be equally applied with minimal changes just to other posts you made the same day. It's a purposeless re-frame (well, unless your purpose was close to your response ... to waste my time).
And grats thread on 10 million views.
|
On January 27 2018 12:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land. It kind of lost its fangs when everything was considered obstruction of justice and the writers/posters made it clear they had no fucking clue about the legal standard. Now it's like digging through a pile of shit from anonymous sources, wondering if we actually have something this time, or a group of libs didn't like something he did but like the sound of "obstruction" more than "unethical." That really is too bad.
*Cough* *cough* Clinton-Lynch-tarmac-meeting, *cough*, *cough*, *cough*
|
On January 27 2018 17:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 14:52 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to. www.nytimes.comSaw this story making the rounds. The coming reaction to it is probably more interesting than the story itself, though. Like husband like wife.
I have to ask this in all honesty, what are you talking about? Normally I can figure out the weird stuff you see when you read things by simply going "How would someone who is determined to see x no matter what find a small thing that they could say might be x as long as you ignore everything around it? "
However I don't see how you made that logical leap? Maybe you mistyped the attack but it makes no sense. There is a perfectly viable attack path there and you decided on the one that makes no sense
|
On January 27 2018 13:53 Tachion wrote:
Does anyone think they would bring up obstruction charges if they also couldn't nail down proof on why he was trying so hard to obstruct? Without additional related charges for accepting assistance from foreign nationals, the obstruction charge is going to lose a lot of its teeth.
Well, at this point it's clear at minimum he would have been protecting Flynn, Page and Manafort.
Though this presumes both loyalty on Trump's part and an understanding on his part that the investigation could develop in directions that threatened them, which is probably a bit of a leap because he's a disloyal moron (though he would never say so).
The other thing is that even if an investigation won't find anything against you, interfering with its execution because it's "like a cloud" on your presidency is still OOJ. This is why I think the firing Comey decision was just so, so dumb if Trump really didn't do anything wrong on an individual level during the campaign (which, honestly, I think is likely because he's too easy to manipulate within the bounds of what's legal because he's a disloyal moron).
|
On January 28 2018 00:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 13:53 Tachion wrote:
Does anyone think they would bring up obstruction charges if they also couldn't nail down proof on why he was trying so hard to obstruct? Without additional related charges for accepting assistance from foreign nationals, the obstruction charge is going to lose a lot of its teeth. Well, at this point it's clear at minimum he would have been protecting Flynn, Page and Manafort. Though this presumes both loyalty on Trump's part and an understanding on his part that the investigation could develop in directions that threatened them, which is probably a bit of a leap because he's a disloyal moron (though he would never say so). The other thing is that even if an investigation won't find anything against you, interfering with its execution because it's "like a cloud" on your presidency is still OOJ. This is why I think the firing Comey decision was just so, so dumb if Trump really didn't do anything wrong on an individual level during the campaign (which, honestly, I think is likely because he's too easy to manipulate within the bounds of what's legal because he's a disloyal moron).
I think it's kind of like tampering of evidence. The act of doing it has to be illegal because if it required other convictions, it would create the possibility that you either successfully or unsuccessfully tampering with evidence. If there was video footage of you destroying evidence, it would be silly to be like "Well since the evidence no longer exists, and we can no longer prosecute for this other thing, the criminal act of destroying evidence is no longer a bad thing"
|
On January 27 2018 14:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to. www.nytimes.comSaw this story making the rounds. The coming reaction to it is probably more interesting than the story itself, though.
faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network
The irony of a sexual harasser being a founding member of anything with supposed "values" is not lost on us, I'm sure.
And the fact that presidents/ candidates have "faith advisers" is pretty facepalm-y.
|
On January 28 2018 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 14:52 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to. www.nytimes.comSaw this story making the rounds. The coming reaction to it is probably more interesting than the story itself, though. The irony of a sexual harasser being a founding member of anything with supposed "values" is not lost on us, I'm sure. And the fact that presidents/ candidates have "faith advisers" is pretty facepalm-y.
It's only ironic if you don't expect hypocrisy of those involved in religious organisations 
I feel like the ideal of Church-State separation is not something taken particularly seriously in the US overall. If it was then the existence of the position might be a tad more surprising.
|
On January 28 2018 00:02 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 17:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 14:52 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to. www.nytimes.comSaw this story making the rounds. The coming reaction to it is probably more interesting than the story itself, though. Like husband like wife. I have to ask this in all honesty, what are you talking about? Normally I can figure out the weird stuff you see when you read things by simply going "How would someone who is determined to see x no matter what find a small thing that they could say might be x as long as you ignore everything around it? " However I don't see how you made that logical leap? Maybe you mistyped the attack but it makes no sense. There is a perfectly viable attack path there and you decided on the one that makes no sense
Who does "like husband like wife" refer to in the context of that article, and what are some allegations that have been lodged against that person?
|
It's not at all settled in stone that the legal standard for obstruction has not been met. Even if Alan Dershowitz says otherwise.
|
Trump has seriously warped this news organization. They're actually tweeting this out. I thought it was a parody at first. These guys should start running Sesame Street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
