A Gallery of Trump-Inspired Assholes (Part 3)

11 Likes

Does this mean we can demand to speak to her manager?

11 Likes
9 Likes
5 Likes

Nope, donā€™t wanna, ainā€™t gonna. FOAD you hag.

9 Likes
14 Likes

:scream_cat: oh no! /s

14 Likes

Ā°Ā·ā€¢Ā°Ā°Ā·Ā·Ā°ā€¢Ā·ā€¢ā€¢Ā°Ā·ā€¢Ā°hicĀ°Ā·ā€¢Ā°Ā°Ā·ā€¢Ā°Ā·ā€¢Ā°Ā·ā€¢Ā°Ā·ā€¢Ā·ā€¢Ā°Ā°

5 Likes

ā€œFailed on the Meritsā€ would be an appropriate epitaph Giuliani.

9 Likes
9 Likes

Sorry for the delayed response.

How would it violate 1A? Negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States when one does not hold a position within the government goes way past free speech into action. Otherwise no one would ever be able to be prosecuted for fraud or espionage. Sorry, I donā€™t buy it.

6 Likes

If Noem is banned from all of the reservations in the state, thatā€™s almost 6000 square miles or 8.5% of the land in the state.

6 Likes

Thereā€™s also the unresolved question of how the Constitution applies outside of the United States. Which is concerning.

7 Likes

Well, it would apply if the US government sought to prosecute a US citizen. The State Dept requesting a foreign government detain him would be shady as hell but maybe not unconstitutional.

7 Likes

But thatā€™s not what heā€™s doing. Do you think any of these governments think he has any authority to do that? If heā€™s pretending he does, then sure, thatā€™s problematic. If all heā€™s doing is saying what Trump is going to do if heā€™s elected, thatā€™s probably protected 1A speech.

8 Likes

I hate it, but I do understand that this is true. This timeline, I hate it.

7 Likes

Sure, but if heā€™s doing T****ā€™s bidding, then you know itā€™s transactional. And that could be as simple as ā€œif you support T**** by [fill in the blank], then when heā€™s re-elected, he will [fill in the blank] for you.ā€ Thatā€™s negotiation and crosses the line.

Just like he did with Zelensky. Thatā€™s how T**** operates, and Grennell is 100% T****ā€™s creature.

6 Likes

I suspect that would make sense to us common folk, but would not fly legally. And probably also why the Logan Act is most likely unconstitutional. I defer to @danimagoo on the details, of course, but yeah, Iā€™ve come around on my thinking in this. Stupid law, unenforceable law, probably should just go away.

6 Likes

Only if itā€™s in regards to an actual dispute the US currently has with that country.

Trump was actually President when that happened. The issue there was that Congress had already committed us to giving them the money and Trump was withholding it, which he had no legal right to do. That didnā€™t implicate the Logan Act at all.

And again, I know I sound like a broken record, but that law hasnā€™t been used since 1852, and no one has ever been convicted of violating it. Even if it looks like it applies, itā€™s not going to happen. Itā€™s just not.

7 Likes

I was using that as an example of how T**** only operates transactionally, not the Logan Act.

I get it. Iā€™ve moved from ā€œcouldā€ to ā€œshould.ā€

6 Likes