Not at all fuzzy. More plain language in the Constitution. Is he making money from foreign countries and their agents? Yes. Is he a government official? Yes. Done.
He can’t even claim he didn’t knowingly violate it, since he was told about the prospective violation, and how to avoid it, by Clinton, live on TV in front of millions of witnesses.
Oh, come on. You can’t expect Trump to actually hear anything when a woman talks.
That’s awesome. Is that photo misleading or did someone fly one ABOVE the US flag? If so that’s a pretty ballsy subversion of flag etiquette. They don’t even do that with state or POW flags.
Edit. I think it’s just the camera angle and they are on separate ropes.
I’m sure they wouldn’t mess it up like that.
How it’s done around here (the U.S. flag is on its own pole out of frame; usually it’s just the state and then the city flag below):
What’s weird* is the note he sent out last week, acknowledging LGBTQ Pride Month. (As an employee of a federal contractor, I got it in my email.)
Trump’s Resistance to Trump?
*Inasmuch as we still have a yardstick for “weird.”
I have a sneaking suspicion that the “pride” tweets were composed by staff, not Il Douche. No missspellings, no random capitalization, not his MO generally. Refusing to allow Pride flags is more in his lane.
Can you imagine Pence’s reaction?
Guessing blood dribbled out of the corner of his eyes.
After all, Pence is the Real President:
Talk to the mascot.
Gritty at Philly Pride.
They say you can’t bring a Pride flag to an embassy?
You bring a Gritty. It’s the Philly way.
Apologies to Sean Connery.
I love Gritty so much.
The only thing I think of when I hear the word “gritty” now is Gritty.
Well done, Philly.
Same. Even the grit level for sand paper brings me there. Is 120 grit 120 Grittys on a playing field?
Yes, but I have to assume that for every staff member who worked on this, there was another who was out-to-lunch when the memo went out, instead of applying Thal’s Law (i.e. For every vision, there is an equal and opposite revision).
Take a lot to displace Shirley Ellis.
Not fighting just Trump, but everyone who made it happen:
So, I watched the House hearings today with John Dean. Republicans being republicans did the same thing they always do: use every opportunity to denigrate the witness and condemn the entire hearing. But one thing stuck out in what they were all saying today: their main defense of Trump now seems to be “yeah maybe he tried to do this stuff - obstruct justice etc - but that was just trump being overly dramatic like he always is and people around him stopped him from actually doing said bad stuff”. From a legal point that seems like maybe a good position for them to take… politically it blows my mind, because you’re basically saying that we are relying on his unelected advisors to save the country from his idiocy. how is that a selling point?
Quite the clusterfuck of a ruling. I’m not sure I agree that it’s worse than Cit U other than it’s a building block of Cit U, but it’s pretty bad. At least it might be open to re-interpretation, since it’s a patchwork of dissenting opinions.
And, no surprise, Thurgood Marshall called it in his dissent:
One of the points on which all Members of the Court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign. It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant “headstart.” Of course, the less wealthy candidate can potentially overcome the disparity in resources through contributions from others. But ability to generate contributions may itself depend upon a showing of a financial base for the campaign or some demonstration of preexisting support, which, in turn, is facilitated by expenditures of substantial personal sums. Thus, the wealthy candidate’s immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not only discourage potential candidates without significant personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.
I suppose admitting to an attempted crime is better than admitting to successfully carrying it out but from a legal point of view having your ‘buddies’ telling everyone “sure, maybe Jim_Campbell wanted to rob that bank but his buddies bundled him out of the bank after he’d slid the demand note to the teller but before he actually shot anyone”, is not actually ‘helpful’ to your defense.
Or Dred v Sandford, for that matter.
