They’d never do that bc they think the drunk woman deserves it
So 18 hours later I guess the answer is “lie about there not being quid pro quo despite overwhelming evidence”?
3 Likes
Proposed site rule: the powers that be must reveal all of their secret crushes.
1 Like
And the sun will rise tomorrow
Can’t be quid pro quo if the other party doesn’t know you’re withholding something from them.
4 Likes
This thread is pretty nuts.
https://mobile.twitter.com/blakesmustache/status/1187018459789570053
4 Likes
And this shit is after this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/blakesmustache/status/1187009248007462912
Consovoy seems to be relying pretty hard on the Nixon “when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal” defense.
2 Likes
Doesn’t work when 40% of the country is deplorable; multiple viable parties just means splitting our vote and losing to the deplorable 40%
I used to think we needed 3 viable parties to change the game theory from zero sum but now that I realize 40% of the country is fucked up, it just won’t work.
We gotta first work on getting that number down to 20% and then we can talk about having multiple non-evil parties
1 Like
The irreperable harm question from the panel, from the very very very little I know, is possibly a bigger bombshell than the testimony about the quid pro quo yesterday.
1 Like
Either that or there’s something else that explains both of those things.
Someone over there didn’t understand Frost/Nixon.
In before “stay pending appeal,” SCOTUS takes it past the election, game over suck it libs.
What election? Since he’s beyond reproach he don’t need no stinkin election.
1 Like
The only question that should have been asked by the circuit court was…
“Can the president be indicted IF he shoots and kills the president elect”
1 Like
Trump is bringing some troops home after all, it seems. They were redeployed to Iraq, of course, but it seems no one bothered to ask Iraq who have now told the soldiers to do one. Winning!
Coming up with new pony puns is half the fun, no?
1 Like