Things seem to be unfolding rather quickly. Former White House aides and advisors are scrambling to cover themselves as they receive subpoenas to appear and produce documents.
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
The lawsuit comes after the committee signaled it would pursue a criminal contempt referral against Meadows because of his refusal to sit for a deposition in the investigation into the Capitol riot. Meadows alleges that the subpoenas are "overly broad and unduly burdensome," while claiming that the committee "lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain" the information requested.
And apparently Mark Meadows had a power point outlining how to overturn election results.
The 38-page presentation, entitled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan," is dated one day before the Capitol riot. It's believed to have been submitted by Meadows after he was subpoenaed by the panel in connection with the insurrection.
There is no threat to LGBTQ other than not allowing porographic material to be viewed by children under the guise of "LGBTQ incusivity".
Latinos are flipping because they see the Republicans are more in line with their values. Let us not forget that Latinos also immigrate legally into the US. They work hard and lawfully. Most do not appreciate anyone coming in illegally when they went through the legal immigration progress.
Tell me, why is Dick and Jane OK for kids but Jane and Jane is Mediaographic?
I agree with your point that Latinos are flipping because of a perceived alignment of values with Republican PR. Watch out for the backlash when they figure out the difference between what the party says and what it does, and where it’s loyalties really lie.
Nice deflection to a bit of right wing rhetoric that is completely unrelated to the fact that republicans are currently ignoring congressional subpoenas while you are suggesting that a republican congress should subpoena democrats for some hyperbolic claim. The stacked court pearl clutching is especially amusing in an ironic fashion at this particular moment in time. Or maybe you believe that the elevation of Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett weren't political court packing.
Be careful what you wish for. The party that excuses an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election and talks about running their twice impeached ex president who inspires such anti-american sentiment again in 2024, just harvested the fruits of their court stacking and dishonesty by turning women's reproductive health care and financial security over to the political whims of their state governments. Those things may not play out as well as Republicans might prefer on election day...unless they are confident that they now have adequate control of the elections and vote counting and they don't need to worry about the views of the majority anymore.
Get back to me about your concerns regarding the filibuster when women's rights aren't a political football for conservatives. There does need to be reform to how the electoral college votes are determined.
And let's throw in campaign finance reform...the biggest turd in the room.
Nice deflection to a bit of right wing rhetoric that is completely unrelated to the fact that republicans are currently ignoring congressional subpoenas while you are suggesting that a republican congress should subpoena democrats for some hyperbolic claim. The stacked court pearl clutching is especially amusing in an ironic fashion at this particular moment in time. Or maybe you believe that the elevation of Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett weren't political court packing.
Be careful what you wish for. The party that excuses an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election and talks about running their twice impeached ex president who inspires such anti-american sentiment again in 2024, just harvested the fruits of their court stacking and dishonesty by turning women's reproductive health care and financial security over to the political whims of their state governments. Those things may not play out as well as Republicans might prefer on election day...unless they are confident that they now have adequate control of the elections and vote counting and they don't need to worry about the views of the majority anymore.
Get back to me about your concerns regarding the filibuster when women's rights aren't a political football for conservatives. There does need to be reform to how the electoral college votes are determined.
Unless they charge him with something...... your repetitive sentiments for Trump will just be silly flatulence in the air......
Women can have abortions in the states that allow it. No one is taking a woman's right to end her pregnancy. The Supreme Court made a judgment. It's not there to make everyone happy.
Tell me, why is Dick and Jane OK for kids but Jane and Jane is Mediaographic?
I agree with your point that Latinos are flipping because of a perceived alignment of values with Republican PR. Watch out for the backlash when they figure out the difference between what the party says and what it does, and where it’s loyalties really lie.
Don't be purposely obtuse.
No one thinks Dick and Dick in a relationship is Mediaographic. It's Mediaographic when there is graphic illustrations and/or descriptions of how Dick performs oral/anal sex on Dick. Or describes how to peg Dick with a fake, well, you know what. The name serves several purposes. Then people who object to this content available to children are somehow trying to remove rights from LGBTQ. It is just as offensive and inappropriate if it was Dick and Jane performing sex acts for children's consumption. Or Jane and Jane. Or Jane, Dick, Dick and Jane and the dog. Not to mention gyrating drag queens dancing around in thongs with a giant sign saying, " it isn't going to lick itself" behind them whist getting dollar bills put near their purppsly not concealed bulge panties,by children. I would hope any decent person regardless of political affiliation would find this innapropriate.
I do not understand what the real priorities or where Republican loyalties really lie. Care to explain?
That's funny coming from a person who won't consume even a couple hours of evidence but is demanding more evidence...that will be ignored. Did you listen to Trump pressure and make thinly veiled threats in the hour long call to Georgia officials?
Right, I didn't think so.
Maybe someday you'll want to talk about the available facts and evidence rather than guessing that there might be a reasonable explanation for all of the lies and corrupt behavior that surround Trump's attempt to retain lost power.
Maybe one day you will overcome your obsession with Trump and produce a contribution without your repetitive right wing theories and not use propagandic techniques while most likely not aware of your own propagandic rhetoric.
I already told you. I will make my decision when I research information from a variety of sources. Not solely on a committee that within the first hour provided material that was cut from its entirety. And I said they should charge him.
You can go on ,and quite ironically hanging on to every word like a religious zealot you so often say Republican subscribe to.
No one thinks Dick and Dick in a relationship is Mediaographic. It's Mediaographic when there is graphic illustrations and/or descriptions of how Dick performs oral/anal sex on Dick. Or describes how to peg Dick with a fake, well, you know what. The name serves several purposes. Then people who object to this content available to children are somehow trying to remove rights from LGBTQ. It is just as offensive and inappropriate if it was Dick and Jane performing sex acts for children's consumption. Or Jane and Jane. Or Jane, Dick, Dick and Jane and the dog. Not to mention gyrating drag queens dancing around in thongs with a giant sign saying, " it isn't going to lick itself" behind them whist getting dollar bills put near their purppsly not concealed bulge panties,by children. I would hope any decent person regardless of political affiliation would find this innapropriate.
I do not understand what the real priorities or where Republican loyalties really lie. Care to explain?
And I don't think there's anything wrong with debating the appropriateness of sexually explicit material for certain age groups, but the vast majority of books banned by school boards and prohibited topics are simply that homosexuals exist, or that transgendered people exist. Books like Call Me Max and I am Jazz have no sexual content, but have been banned simply for having characters of differing sexual orientation and gender identity.
Simply acknowledging not everyone is the same is not damaging to children, yet this is an argument put forward by many conservatives.
No one thinks Dick and Dick in a relationship is Mediaographic. It's Mediaographic when there is graphic illustrations and/or descriptions of how Dick performs oral/anal sex on Dick. Or describes how to peg Dick with a fake, well, you know what. The name serves several purposes. Then people who object to this content available to children are somehow trying to remove rights from LGBTQ. It is just as offensive and inappropriate if it was Dick and Jane performing sex acts for children's consumption. Or Jane and Jane. Or Jane, Dick, Dick and Jane and the dog. Not to mention gyrating drag queens dancing around in thongs with a giant sign saying, " it isn't going to lick itself" behind them whist getting dollar bills put near their purppsly not concealed bulge panties,by children. I would hope any decent person regardless of political affiliation would find this innapropriate.
I do not understand what the real priorities or where Republican loyalties really lie. Care to explain?
Are there any kindergarten-level materials that include what you described here? Or are you just dancing with your straw man again?
As for Republican loyalties … ignore the rhetoric and consider what they actually do. AparticularlyegregiousexamplebeingformerGOPrepresentativeTimMurphy.
There is no threat to LGBTQ other than not allowing porographic material to be viewed by children under the guise of "LGBTQ incusivity".
Latinos are flipping because they see the Republicans are more in line with their values. Let us not forget that Latinos also immigrate legally into the US. They work hard and lawfully. Most do not appreciate anyone coming in illegally when they went through the legal immigration progress.
I assume I'm misunderstanding you, Latinos who vote democrat don't work hard and are here illegally?
I assume I'm misunderstanding you, Latinos who vote democrat don't work hard and are here illegally?
I just got accused of dancing with a strawman and you come in with a racial strawman.
I did not, do not, associate ones hard work based on their race or political affiliation. Did you know some Latinos vote Republican? Or do you think they are not real Latinos because they do not vote Democrat? Where would you get the idea that Latinos at all don't work hard? Strange.
I was refering to the people,now listen very carefully, I said people with no association to the color of their skin or political affiliation.
The people who have worked hard and lawfully. The legal immigrants that filled the paper work, went through the processes to become legal US immigrants. They don't even have to be Latinos. It refers to all legal US immigrants. These are the people that do not always appreciate people entering the country illegally without going through the process that they had to.
I just got accused of dancing with a strawman and you come in with a racial strawman.
I did not, do not, associate ones hard work based on their race or political affiliation. Did you know some Latinos vote Republican? Or do you think they are not real Latinos because they do not vote Democrat? Where would you get the idea that Latinos at all don't work hard? Strange.
I was refering to the people,now listen very carefully, I said people with no association to the color of their skin or political affiliation.
The people who have worked hard and lawfully. The legal immigrants that filled the paper work, went through the processes to become legal US immigrants. They don't even have to be Latinos. It refers to all legal US immigrants. These are the people that do not always appreciate people entering the country illegally without going through the process that they had to.
This was your statement earlier
7 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Latinos are flipping because they see the Republicans are more in line with their values. Let us not forget that Latinos also immigrate legally into the US. They work hard and lawfully. Most do not appreciate anyone coming in illegally when they went through the legal immigration progress.
I'm not sure I'm any clearer that you weren't saying the hardworking, legally immigrating Latinos vote Republican (as opposed to ?) but I'll take your word for it as I don't think that's what you meant, which is why I pointed out how it came across.
I'm not sure I'm any clearer that you weren't saying the hardworking, legally immigrating Latinos vote Republican (as opposed to ?) but I'll take your word for it as I don't think that's what you meant, which is why I pointed out how it came across.
Fair enough but I made no association to voting Democrat. Nor did I associate Latinos not working hard. Not in that context. The only one to make that association is you. Ironically from the side that claims non racist superiority and myself as on the side of "racist".....
1 hour ago, heron said:
Are there any kindergarten-level materials that include what you described here? Or are you just dancing with your straw man again?
As for Republican loyalties … ignore the rhetoric and consider what they actually do. AparticularlyegregiousexamplebeingformerGOPrepresentativeTimMurphy.
"Another line in Lawn Boy read, “What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick? What if I told you I sucked it? I was 10 years old but it’s true. I sucked [Doug]’s dick, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” The “real estate guy” was a reference to an adult man, Nomani reported."
This was available to 12 year Olds. Is this appropriate? I glad you may thinks so for kindergarten.
heron, ASN, RN
4,653 Posts
Why wait until November? Or is this a replay of the pillow guy’s strategy … big promises for revelations tomorrow yet tomorrow never comes?
IOW, you got nothin’.