Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

During NIxon’s Watergate fiasco Bork wrote that a sitting president can’t be indicted, for it would interfere with his ability to carry out the tasks of the office.
When Bill Clinton was being investigated for all manner of offenses (and finally for lying to Congress about receiving a blowjob from an intern) Kenneth Starr wrote that a sitting president can be indicted, for in America, no one - not even Clinton - is above the law.

---

Trish, maybe -isn't the issue here not an indictment or even a trial and a verdict -but the fact that a President can issue an Official Pardon before or after those facts? Presidents have issued such Pardons before, before there was even a process of law -cf Ford's pardon of Nixon. Perhaps one day soon your President will stand on the steps outside the Lincoln Memorial and declare: I AM THE LAW. I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA... (etc).
What are you going to do about it? Email Kamala?

Is Scaramouche trying to upstage his boss as groper-in-chief? This was one creepy interview, as you can see from the link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/pol...g-interviewer/

smoochie is really distraught his financial disclosure info leaked because it shows that rather than spend his money on those male vitality pills that donald trump swears by, he's instead investing $250k in teen comedies aimed at teen girls about forming girl groups to fight bullies?

and his handshake doesn't seem as strong as the donald's. not a good look for a guy who's supposedly to be helping #MAGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekz-WVsRGSo

The latest from Scaramouche-

After telling Politico of his plans to fire Mr Short in advance, Mr Scaramucci then condemned the press for reporting on it.

“This is actually a terrible thing,” he told reporters outside the White House. “Let’s say I’m firing Michael Short today. The fact that you guys know about it before he does really upsets me as a human being and as a Roman Catholic.”

“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own c***,” he said of Mr Trump’s chief strategist who is said to wield significant influence in the White House. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7864001.html

Just when you thought the administration could not go lower...or raise even more laughs than Calamity Sean...

just had a good time going through various conservative timelines and replying to their anti-mccain comments


this type of schadenfreude isn't healthy, but i wish i could start EVERYDAY like this

Attachment 1020493

priebus resigns. and (supposedly) the smooch's wife has filed for divorce.

looks like someone’s gonna have to learn how to suck their own cock

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-divorce.html

Attachment 1020509

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politi...ter/index.html

Amusing read. Prankster got several important people to email him back by impersonating Priebus, Hunstman, Donald Jr. etc.

Edit: I'm not sure if I posted this in the right thread, but anyway it's late etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politi...ter/index.html

Amusing read. Prankster got several important people to email him back by impersonating Priebus, Hunstman, Donald Jr. etc.

Edit: I'm not sure if I posted this in the right thread, but anyway it's late etc.

---

I love that the guy impersonating Eric Trump was able to say something that made him sound so feeble-minded and Huntsman did not think anything was amiss. Here's what imposter Eric Trump said:"Maybe we could have Dad sat (sic) on a horse, top off, giving the full Putin! He's in better shape than his suits suggest."

Scaramucci was fooled by both fake Priebus and fake Huntsman accounts. The same prankster accepted an apology from one of Scaramucci's PR friends Arthur Schwartz which is not in the article. They dodged a bullet getting rid of Scaramucci. He was going to lead them to disaster.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/u...e-iphone-share

I happen to support what is colloquially called affirmative action although I don't think disagreeing with the policy is evidence of racism. But I do question the motives of a justice department who sees it as a priority to target a program that is remedial in its objectives. I can't remember off the top of my head, but there is case law on the permissible scope of affirmative action policies. I think there is a ban on strict quotas but universities are allowed to consider diversity a priority and weigh it as one of many factors in admissions decisions.

Anyhow, my intention is not really to discuss affirmative action so much as to ask whether this seems like a suspect priority for the civil rights division of our justice department to have given the pernicious effect many of Sessions' policies will have on groups that have been historic victims of the most appalling racism.

I recall years ago reading about the case of Alan Bakke who sued the University of California in the 1970s -when it initially refused him entry to medical school- as a form of 'reverse discrimination' due to the fact that the medical school reserved 17 [in some accounts, 16] places for minorities even if they did not have the qualifications. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that Bakke had been discriminated against, but that the policy of the University of California was legal. There is a brief outline of the case in the link below. The eminent jurist Ronald Dworkin produced a thoughtful analysis of the case and the justification for Affirmative Action in the NYT in 1977 with this succinct assessment:
The tiny number of black doctors and professionals is both a consequence and a continuing cause of American racial consciousness, one link in a long and self-fueling chain reaction. Affirmative action programs use racially explicit criteria because their immediate goal is to increase the number of members of certain races in these professions. But their long-term goal is to reduce the degree to which American society is over-all a racially conscious society.
The whole of his article is here-
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1977...e-has-no-case/

http://teachers.dadeschools.net/jzoe...aeed90-36.html