Did Pelosi just un-invite Trump from the State of the Union?

[UltraVires]

@Bryan_Ekers

I daresay you have been sufficiently corrected on this point, unless you wish to start minutely parsing the word “recall”.

I certainly have not. What crime was Trump suspected of prior to 2016?

And in case we get into nitpickery, when I say “suspected” I mean something more than an accusation. Something a law enforcement body took seriously and placed him in a real possibility of indictment or facing a criminal trial.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@UltraVires

I certainly have not. What crime was Trump suspected of prior to 2016?

And in case we get into nitpickery, when I say “suspected” I mean something more than an accusation. Something a law enforcement body took seriously and placed him in a real possibility of indictment or facing a criminal trial.

I dunno if this is moving the goalposts, exactly, but it certainly is narrowing them. Got any other qualifiers you want to attach, or is that enough (for now)?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I, too, will wait for assurances that the above definition of “suspected” will remain fixed.

[Ravenman]

@UltraVires

I certainly have not. What crime was Trump suspected of prior to 2016?

And in case we get into nitpickery, when I say “suspected” I mean something more than an accusation. Something a law enforcement body took seriously and placed him in a real possibility of indictment or facing a criminal trial.

Similarly, what crime was Nixon suspected of prior to 1972?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ravenman

Similarly, what crime was Nixon suspected of prior to 1972?

I’d have to research the specifics, but Nixon’s so-called “Checkers speech” of 1952 was to address some allegations made against him related to campaign finance.

[Ambrosio_Spinola]

@UltraVires

And in case we get into nitpickery, when I say “suspected” I mean something more than an accusation. Something a law enforcement body took seriously and placed him in a real possibility of indictment or facing a criminal trial.

He has had various settlements (some quite substantial) over the years with the SEC and several state gaming commissions. Admittedly these were all civil suits and/or settlements, but my understanding is that there were potential criminal violations involved as well but that it’s common for these agencies to simply pursue civil remedies in all but the most egregious cases since the bar for criminal convictions is pretty high. In particular in the situation where Fred Trump bought millions of dollars in chips they eventually admitted that this was against the law but got off by paying a fine.

[Procrustus]

@Ravenman

Similarly, what crime was Nixon suspected of prior to 1972?

Or Ted Bundy in 1975.

[Ravenman]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’d have to research the specifics, but Nixon’s so-called “Checkers speech” of 1952 was to address some allegations made against him related to campaign finance.

Those weren’t criminal allegations but ethical ones! Don’t count! Lalallalallalalala!!!

This illustrates the silliness of UV’s restrictions - no matter how many contractors he stiffed, no matter how many fake charities, no matter how many civil suits for not renting to black people - UV will just disregard any misdeeds as not being like what he’s being accused of today.

ETA: to say it another way, UV seems to be puzzled why Trump hasn’t broken any electoral laws before he ran a political campaign. Duh.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, maybe Trump can get probation when he’s convicted of treason. After all, it’s his first offense.

[Sherrerd]

@UltraVires

… What I think is a step too far is to disrespect the office because of the current occupant. It will just lead to the same thing happening to the next Democratic president because someone else believes that he or she has not acted with sufficient dignity. …

I’m trying to picture the Democrats nominating someone—anyone—who would behave with a millionth of the contempt-for-the-office displayed, so far, by the profoundly indecent Mr. Trump.

I’m failing. My imagination just isn’t that strong. I suspect no one’s is that strong.

I believe the dignity of the Presidency will be quite safe, post-Trump. No one who is at all likely to achieve the office will get up to the malevolent buffoonery exhibited by the current inhabitant.
If there’s any doubt, recent revelations detail Trump Administrations plans to visit the maximum of cruelty on children:

The memo goes on to describe how to effectively deter family and other caretakers from coming forward to sponsor children while their asylum cases proceed, keeping children in detention longer. Specially, one senior administration official said
“I would suggest referring sponsors for criminal prosecution… if information indicates that the sponsor facilitated the travel of the minor into the United States.” Another official says “This would result in a deterrent impact on “sponsors.” (p.2)

Merkley Reveals Secret Trump Administration Plan to Create Border Crisis

(my emphasis)

[Chisquirrel]

@UltraVires

Absolutely. If you or anyone believes he has done those things, you are free to point them out and complain about them. What I think is a step too far is to disrespect the office because of the current occupant. It will just lead to the same thing happening to the next Democratic president because someone else believes that he or she has not acted with sufficient dignity.

The party that elected the Birther-In-Chief, the party that was up in arms over an tan suit, the party that frothed over FANCY MUSTARD does not get to say shit about “disrespecting the office of the President”.
It’s like “conservatives” believe librul Demonrats have the same goldfish memories of the Republican base.

[UltraVires]

@Sherrerd

If there’s any doubt, recent revelations detail Trump Administrations plans to visit the maximum of cruelty on children:

Merkley Reveals Secret Trump Administration Plan to Create Border Crisis | by Senator Jeff Merkley | Medium

(my emphasis)

Did you read your own link that you are outraged about? If a sponsor has facilitated the illegal entry of someone by coaching them on a bogus asylum claim, then they have broken the law and should be prosecuted.

How is enforcing the law and example of Trump’s evilness?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@UltraVires

Did you read your own link that you are outraged about? If a sponsor has facilitated the illegal entry of someone by coaching them on a bogus asylum claim, then they have broken the law and should be prosecuted.

How is enforcing the law and example of Trump’s evilness?

You appear to have missed the point of the post to which you are responding.

[TroutMan]

@UltraVires

Did you read your own link that you are outraged about? If a sponsor has facilitated the illegal entry of someone by coaching them on a bogus asylum claim, then they have broken the law and should be prosecuted.

How is enforcing the law and example of Trump’s evilness?

Where did you get bogus asylum claim? I assume the part you are referencing is this:

“I would suggest referring sponsors for criminal prosecution… if information indicates that the sponsor facilitated the travel of the minor into the United States.” Another official says “This would result in a deterrent impact on “sponsors.”

That says nothing about “bogus claims.” Seeking asylum is not illegal.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

UltraVires’ goalposts move and change tho, TroutMan; they’re not tame goalposts.

[Sherrerd]

@Bryan_Ekers

You appear to have missed the point of the post to which you are responding.

Yes, and

@TroutMan

Where did you get bogus asylum claim? I assume the part you are referencing is this:

“I would suggest referring sponsors for criminal prosecution… if information indicates that the sponsor facilitated the travel of the minor into the United States.” Another official says “This would result in a deterrent impact on “sponsors.”

That says nothing about “bogus claims.” Seeking asylum is not illegal.

…yes.

[alphaboi867]

Now Trump’s insisting the State of the Union go ahead because he was already invited. So WTF is that going to look like? Is he going to just hold a rally and call it the State of the Union, give it in the Senate chamber (w/o any Democrats attending), or just show up any with his entourage and hope he doesn’t get locked and look like Caroline of Brunswick?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Chronos]

Does this mean that we’ll get to see the House Sergeant at Arms physically restrain Trump? That’d be great.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chronos

Does this mean that we’ll get to see the House Sergeant at Arms physically restrain Trump? That’d be great.

I suspect the Secret Service would intervene prior to that happening.

[Sherrerd]

@Chronos

Does this mean that we’ll get to see the House Sergeant at Arms physically restrain Trump? That’d be great.

@HurricaneDitka

I suspect the Secret Service would intervene prior to that happening.

Battle Royale!

You have to hand it to Trump: he knows a great television set-up when he sees it.