What are you talking about?
This was definitely NOT a huge component of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It also definitely did NOT play into the Democrat’s delusion that any left leaning voters they lost by shifting to the right would be replaced by the GOP moderates it would attract.
Oh, and Chuck Schummer also NEVER repeatedly made these claims in public, or during media appearances.
So yeah, this is a bold and definitely BRAND NEW strategy.
No way it goes tits up.
Exactly, and I bet you feel fucking stupid as shit now. Don’t you?
Well, I’m not getting left behind this time. No fucking way.
I’m not waiting for the SCOTUS ruling to get in on this action. I’ve already got the ball rolling on all types of fraudulent and criminal financial dealings.
What’s the opposite of a statute of limitations?
Gee. I wonder what the difference could be…
But, don’t fear. As long as the current political trends continue, something tells me America might change its mind again… shortly after the new administration is inaugurated.
Zoom in even closer, there’s another related hidden treasure.
There’s just so many Easter eggs in this still frame from one of her interviews.
Amazing.
That’s irrelevant to my point, which was that destroying evidence in a trial with monetary damages can result in increased damages, instead of avoiding them.
If you’re still not getting it, you should reread the comment thread and to see the context for that example being used.
This isn’t a murder trial. This can have significantly adverse affects on the punitive damages.
Just look at the Alex Jones trial for a recent example.
It’s possible they think that, but it’s not something that is made clear through their comments here, at least not to me. But that’s mostly because they’re very poorly written, like I said, only partially intelligible.
No, he’s saying that national Democracts leverage the black community for votes, and in exchange, repeatedly screw them over - when they manage to remember they exist outside of election cycles.
At least, that’s how I read his comment. It is only partially intelligible.
Nah, I respected Thomas for never asking questions.
He was the only one of the nine justices, who for so long, didn’t pretend that his mind wasn’t already made up, or that there was an answer a lawyer could give that would change his predetermined ruling.
He knew what the assignment was, and fuck if he was going to waste any more time then necessary.
Look, the worst that could happen is that he murders you, but honestly, he probably won’t.
It’s more likey he’ll probably just wear you down emotionally until you support him financially, while he stays at home and takes out credit cards under your name.
On the plus side, I bet he’ll fuck like a racehorse on the rare days when he isn’t too dipped, or shit faced.
Edit: Just noticed you added that he’s a veteran with PTSD, and yes, that changes my answer: he will probably murder you.
Not just because he’s a veteran with PTSD, but because he’s clearly a massively damaged and dangerous person AND has war trauma.
Most likely outcome: strangulation.
That’s not what I said.
Why should they know better?
She, and Chuck Schummer, will always have more in common with Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, then with any working class voter, or rank and file Democrat.
They’re two sides of the same coin, serving the same master.
He’s not just the only anti-abortion Democrat serving in Congress, but party leadership and power brokers threw all of the influence and money that they could to defeat his challenger from the left during the last primary. He just barely won because they dragged him across the finish line.
FYI this DOJ investigation and plenty more were known when the Democratic party establishment decided to invest all that time and effort into defeating his primary challenger.
It didn’t matter that he was a dirty scumbag who was staring down an indictment, he would vote how they wanted him to i.e. fuck the base and big ups the donor class.
deleted by creator
My point wasn’t that it’s weird for him to discuss anything, but that it’s odd that anyone would want to listen to him, or take him seriously.
There’s plenty of other legal commentators who’ve made the same point, and they have the added benefit of not being bootlicking sex pests.
Wasn’t Toobin caught jerking off during a Zoom meeting? I only bring it up because he’s always been a cringe establishment creep who’s analysis and opinions I’ve felt comfortable completely ignoring.
Edit: Yes, here we go
CNN Chief Legal Analyst Suspended by The New Yorker for Masturbating During Zoom Call
Of course they did, they’re the FBI. The same way nearly every FOILED “terrorist plot” since 9/11 has been instigated by the FBI, and Federal informants.
FBI agents honey trapped lonely brown boys with fake online girlfriends, who then pushed them hard to commit acts of terrorism.
Do I think Congressman Dumbfuck is speaking in good faith, or even with a generally firm grasp on reality? Ha, no. Clay Higgins is easily one of the dumbest people to ever serve in Congress.
But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this one specific issue.
No, please don’t expand the horrific practice of labeling of people as terrorists to use as a scarlet letter and help the FBI/DOJ get around those peski civil liberties.
The equitable answer isn’t to expand the War on Terror to include more whites, it’s to end it and repeal the unconstitutional laws that passed to support it.