Lol, it looks like the grail scene from The Last Crusade (and Trump’s probably drunk from all of them)
He chose…poorly…
That thing in the middle on the fireplace mantle might be the Holy Grail (from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, that is)! 
It says “For subscribers only.” (I NEVER go to CNN, so no article count.)
WAAHHH! But I wanna see the gold and gilded shit! 
Erik Prince the mercenary from Holland Mi has remerged eager to help speed up mass deportations.
Anyone hear of Unplugged his encrypted cell phone company?
As if they hadn’t figured it out before they got there?
CNN, however accidentally, is doing you a favor. You must trust me on this.
ThelmaLou sulks. A little.
I did find a few pictures. And yes, I threw up in my mouth a little.
Donnie moved back in the flags of the armed forces. 'Cause he loves the military so much, including except veterans. I’m an Air Force brat and an Army widow, and I can be moved by the sight of battle ribbons attached to the tops of those flags (colors).
But what’s up with this phony Space-X flag? That’s an insult to the REAL flags of the REAL services that have REAL history and REAL veterans/active duty. (Not that Donnie would give a fuck about it…)
That’s actually a flag for the U.S. Space Force, not SpaceX:
Not sure about the fabric, but the hardware is eerily reminiscent of that used to attack the Capitol Police on January 6th.
Or, to Mr. Trump, a “souvenir to remind him of happier times.”
Yeah - but what is with the ribbons at the top (in ThelmaLou’s pic)? Have we seen attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion?
Sorry, I stand corrected. But is that an actual branch of the military? With the Star-Trek-knockoff insignia?
And where were those battle ribbons acquired? (Ninja’d by @Dinsdale.)
Yes, despite the silly name and logo, it really is an actual (if new) U.S. military branch. It, along with the U.S. Air Force, is part of the Department of the Air Force. It was created in 2019, by the Trump administration.
To boldly go where no trans has gone before.
This is a cousin of mine. I do not know her current employment status, however:
I’d have hoped Melania, despite her fashion (“I don’t really care do U”) and decorative skills (the dead forest Xmas White House decor) would slap him down. As little as I like her, she’s around 3000 times better than trump
I wish she had decorated it all in black. With a gold spotlight shining down on Donnie. And the Resolute desk on a two-foot high platform. Edged with black fur. Yeah. Cool.
Trump & Co. just haven’t gotten around to discharging her yet. Can’t have one in his military force.
Come to think of it, what did he replace the Resolute Desk with after Elmo’s sprog wiped a booger on it, and it was sent out to be refurbished?
Could you point me in that direction, please? There’s such a swirling miasma of semi-related stuff in different threads these days, but that topic is one I have specific interest in following.
With reference to people detained by US Customs and Border Protection (there have been a few German nationals too lately), what would be the reason for people being detained for days or weeks by CBP?
I can imagine the following choices for US Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry:
(1) Person not in possession of necessary visa or ESTA, or suspected of intentions not covered by the visa or ESTA (e.g. intending to work in tourist status) → Person denied entry, at land border: just turned back; an an airport: possibly detained for a few hours pending the next available flight back. Possibly with prejudice to future visa or ESTA applications.
(2) Person with active arrest warrant → Person arrested and fed into the US criminal justice system, with the rights of an arrested person.
(3) Person caught smuggling → Person arrested and fed into the US criminal justice system, with the rights of an arrested person
(4) None of the above → Person admitted to the US
What I cannot get my head around is what seems to happen sometimes:
(5) Person detained for days or weeks but not charged with an offence.
What would be the legal and procedural reason for (5)?