All it proves is that Putin didn’t trust his memory and wanted a look-see himself
You might have meant that jokingly, but it’s horribly plausible.
You’ll note the lack of a /s
Assange and Stone should share a cell with Donnie.
I remember Assange going on Bill Maher’s show back in 2016 or so, and "revealing " that he had info proving Maher had donated a large sum to Clinton’s campaign, as though it was a gotcha kind of thing. To which Maher replied “No shit, i announced it on my show!” The look on Assange’s face was priceless. He is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
You would think for someone puttering around in the Ecuadoran Embassy that he’d have more time to watch TV. 
He was too busy learning to skateboard.
They really do seem to struggle with the whole “Executive privilege lies with the office, not the individual,” don’t they? Of course, some of them really do believe that Il Douche is still president, but they are lost, so doesn’t matter.
I’ve mentioned before how the print version sometimes has different headlines than the website. The paper says, “Judge asks whether Oath Keepers leader ordered others to breach Capitol,” which I mentally teed up for something like:
“Certainly not, Your Honor!”
“Well, I’m placated, so long as you got a voucher!”
But, no, it went better than I might’ve feared:
Maybe God hates you?
CNN is the only outlet I am seeing with a link to the full order, so here goes:
Overall a sound ruling. What is simultaneously mind-blowing yet utterly unsurprising is that the Oath Breakers argued the Section 1985 count against them should be dismissed because the certification of the electoral college vote was not a “duty” of Congress but just something Congress was there to observe as a formality. Which raises a rather obvious question: Why the everlasting fuck were the Oath Breakers and other SA elements in DC that day if Congress was just performing a formality, and nothing they did could change the result? A question Judge Mehta unfortunately does not pose.
I think lawyers like to file hypocritical arguments on purpose, to show off for their peers
Whoever can say the most ridiculous thing to a judge with a straight face wins
“may”
