Gromnir

don't listen to skarp_one about... anything. particular not legal. lie to cops is illegal in many countries. even where lie to cops is not inherent illegal, what flynn did woulda' been illegal in almost all the rest. flynn lied in formal interviews with the fbi and signed declarations his statements were truthful to best of his knowledge. those signed declarations is transformative in most european jurisdictions and canada. put it in writing makes a difference in europe 'cause such writings is identified as declarations to the court. is also worth noting how flynn lied to fbi about interactions with a russian agent. such a lie exposed flynn to compromise by the russians as they were aware he lied. the national security aspect o' flynn's lie woulda exposed him to criminal prosecution in any number o' countries even if the crime would not have been the lie itself but the compromise. HA! Good Fun!

one assumes gd has considered health insurance, and as a veteran he gets a few extra benefits. however, most o' us do not like to consider long term care issues, but retirees need do so. live in an rv, moving from parking lot to parking lot, makes the at-home and community services the va provides problematic. more significant is the premiums on long term health insurance. if gd don't care 'bout the quality o' his care, he may be able to swing long term insurance for an additional $2000 per year beyond what he is paying for ordinary health insurance. that right there is a significant % o' his $20k. the $2000 offerings isn't universal terrible and am honest not certain how terrible is such facilities in tennessee, but the spectrum largely runs from terrible to less terrible with genuine comfortable only available to ultra wealthy. 'course perhaps the plan is to eat his .45 if he needs long term care, in which case long term care insurance is an academic question. ... that said, we have a plan for our pets to be cared for after our eventual and inevitable death. the rest is trivialities. HA! Good Fun!

republican governor, tom ridge. HA! Good Fun! ps flynn is just the first. anybody who could be used as a witness against trump in future litigation will likely be pardoned so as to remove leverage options available to the justice department. is the fact this pardon doesn't surprise anybody which should be shocking to everybody.

by selective quote use, we found agreement with gd. am suspecting we could survive on $20k, but not as part o' a retirement plan. our pov is you gotta assume the fates will conspire against you. our initial goal were deciding on comfort level and then making certain we had 1/3 more than that... and then we decided double were more prudent. our rather impoverished developmental years made us a bit weird 'bout money. no lose situation 'cause whatever excess we have is going to st jude children's research hospital, a couple different cancer foundations, and a small number o' local charities... am adding these folks to the list-- they also offer services for small dog owners. HA! Good Fun!

Gaetz: Trump 'should pardon everyone' including himself to quash liberal 'bloodlust' the notion o' a President pardoning himself is a doa legal argument. fundamental rule o' law: "no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself." however, it got us thinking 'bout biden pardoning trump. sure, most folks is gonna laugh at our suggestion, but what if biden offers full pardon for any and all federal crimes... but only those crimes trump admits to? trump is offered a get-out-of-jail-free card with no takebacksees and biden gets to be gracious and merciful to a defeated political foe. undercuts signifficat the democrats out for blood argument, no? sure, trump would never accept such an offer, and from a legal standpoint, it is an offer. (is another reason the self-pardon is a idiotic suggestion. legal cannot make an offer to self.) trump would no doubt refuse biden's offer of pardon tied to admission o' guilt, but am thinking the offer itself would be a political win for biden and would put trump in a difficult position. HA! Good Fun!

that military personnel would need submit to vaccination were never in question. although as we noted, the current guidelines has vaccines being voluntary for military personnel if is no fda approval, and emergency approval don't count. once there is fda approval, it don't matter what your personal reservations 'bout vaccinations may be-- you get your shots. biden could change the current guidelines to include emergency approval. but again... from a legal pov, the issue is gonna be those civilians employees working at military healthcare sites. HA! Good Fun!

clarification: the US and the various States will not legislate universal vaccine mandates particular in the current political climate, am not seeing how such would work. is legal possible for the government to require vaccinations (until jacobson is overturned) but is a lack o' political clout to legislate such mandates when literal +40% o' people is dubious 'bout the covid-19 vaccines, although suspicion is decreasing. thank goodness. what will happen is any number o' government healthcare and educational organizations will require employees to be vaccinated to continue working. am also guessing students at state funded schools will face inconsistent vaccine mandates (e.g. state university school of medicine.) military personnel will also be required to vaccinate... eventually. this is one area where the new biden administration may change policy regarding required vaccinations. full fda approval (not emergency) is the announced prerequisite for mandatory military vaccinations. full fda approval takes a long time and "long" is usual measured in years. however, am suspecting VA hospitals and healthcare facilities is gonna be one o' the initial distribution points for the new covid-19 vaccines and is ez to predict at least a few civilian employees o' the VA will not accept the demand to vaccinate. not actual relevant, but am not personal in favor o' forced vaccinations. the US has an ugly history when it comes to forced medical procedures, particular where those being forced is part o' a political marginalized group. is no reason to believe the current covid-19 vaccines will be anything other than safe and we will be at front o' the que to receive such as soon as is an option. nevertheless, am not believing the State should force vaccinations for covid-19... while at the same time we will continue to seethe at those ignorant granola moms who read on the internet that vaccines cause autism so they avoid having their child vaccinated for measles. give people a choice and is predictable more than a few will chose poorly. am not seeing as inconsistent that we fight for a right to choose while we simultaneous rebuke those who chose wrong. HA! Good Fun!

am agreeing complete. pure transactional and a bit myopic at that. mcconnell got a huge number o' judges installed--lifetime appointments. he also saw trump galvanize the blue collar and white voters who had abandoned republicans a few years earlier and voted for obama. mitch criticism o' harry reid and the democrats for their lack o' integrity were as hollow as were the reasoning for delaying merrick garland confirmation. nothing but transactional concerns from mitch. @Pidesco gonna disagree. mitt stand on impeachment and his marching with blm protesters cost him considerable support at home and with republicans 'cross the nation. recall how medicine dan reacted when we mentioned he-who-shall-not-be-named (mitt romney) earlier in this thread? mitt were marginalized w/i the party to a significant degree which undercut his efforts to author legislation and fundraise. mitt did himself no practical favors and he hurt himself more than a little by standing against trump. romney, as we has been told many times by Constitutional scholars over the years, appeared more concerned with his legacy and reputation than immediate transactional gains. romney behaved as we woulda' expected senators to behave and as we were told by hamilton the founders believed they would. however, am wondering if mitt woulda' shown so much integrity if he hadn't just won his own reelection and were not needing face the specter o' a primary 'gainst a trump supported candidate in the near future. HA! Good Fun!

personal integrity and an unsullied conscience? "Were I to ignore the evidence that has has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience." HA! Good Fun!

we disagree. william barr and trump has made a very dangerous fringe theory o' Presidential authority mainstream. trump refused cooperation with any and all Congressional oversight and the doj, 'ccording to barr, cannot stop the President. as such, impeachment is the ONLY meaningful option for Congress. had to impeach. precedent woulda' been devastating if the house failed to impeach. and keep in mind that your observations 'bout the inevitability o' a failed conviction is predicated on the absence o' testimony and documents which woulda' been available if only a couple more senators had agreed such were warranted. trump is a lousy witness. look up a couple o' his depositions from past lawsuits. a parade o' damning witnesses, supported by documentary evidence and then trump predictable imploding woulda' made conviction a real possibility even if it were not a certainty. 'course again, the norm o' having a President comply with impeachment investigations were erased. impeachment were s'posed to be different. as for head of state stuff, is quaint how a few people believe legal and dictionary definitions is infinite elastic and may be stretched and molded to support any argument. oh sure, lack o' a particular nation having an office which could fit the requirements o' a head o' state shouldn't prevent an individual from nevertheless imagining such into existence. be creative. HA! Good Fun!

hmm. the wall is a good example o' where we disagree. in his fight to build an ineffectual wall on the southern border, trump forced a national shutdown which cost the nation billions o' dollars and he subsequent stole money from the dod which woulda' gone to repairing levees and military base housing and schools. trump pushed his wall building aspirations in spite o' Congress not allocating the President funds and senators stood silent as he did so. trump avoided impeachment investigations in a way never considered possible previous to this administration. refuse to provide documents and witness testimony in an impeachment? am knowing impeachment were many months ago, but is weird how quickly many forget the lengths trump went to avoid being investigated. trump used the acting cabinet member nonsense to a degree never considered previous, leading to innumerable changes to fed regulations which is gonna take years to untangle including blatant ignoring the Court's daca decision-- we mentioned the chad wolf silliness previous on this board. oh, and the election bs trump promoted is not gonna end in 2020. every national election has battleground states and republicans now is aware they may delegitimize an election by pointing to a handful o' voting districts as a way to undermine the elections en masse. detroit. milwaukee. philadelphia. atlanta. four cities and a handful o' districts were the margin o' victory for democrats, and 'cause democrats is more likely urban, that sorta situation will continue. republicans is aware democrats cannot reverse the roles in 2024 or 2026 'cause republicans is rural. cannot hold up an election by fighting in four red counties. sending federal troops to portland to stop protests in spite o' fact state legislators and governors rejected fed interference? that were not petty. oh, and making covid-19 a political issue, conflating second amendment with mask wearing while undercutting cdc guidelines (just a few covid-19 issues) led to many unnecessary american deaths. etc. the biggest tragedy o' the trump Presidency is we learned how meaningless is the Courts and Congress and the Constitution is in restraining a President unable to restrain self. to stop a President from doing illegal requires judges and senators to do their jobs, and all too often, US senators, didn't. converse, thank God a handful of republican low-level bureaucrats and district level judges ignored trump and did their jobs. gd has all wrong and he has slept through the last month if he does not realize how a handful o' election officials and judges in georgia, pennsylvania, michigan and arizona saved american democracy... and that ain't hyperbole. "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." churchill were actual exaggerating the battle o' britain situation-- post war investigations reveal the raf and luftwaffe were having relative parity in the air war over england in ww2. by comparison, the current situation pitted trump v. a handful o' judges and bureaucrats whose names we will forget in another week. if those folks hadn't done their jobs, would you have been confident that US senators woulda' finally found their spines? is gonna take a long time to fix what trump broke, if is possible to fix. HA! Good Fun!

meanwhile, in the US, the next big hurdle will be convincing anti-vaxxers to submit to getting their shots and the inevitable lawsuits which will spawn and spread near as quick as covid-19. keep in mind that while compulsory vaccinations is current okie dokie 'ccording to US law, am suspecting there will be numerous challenges to jacobson (and roe v. wade by the way) and those challenges is gonna pit conservative v. liberal and conservative v. conservative. in fact, liberals and conservatives is gonna realize all too quick how their political distinctions do not mesh seamless with legal arguments. have mentioned on this board previous the case o' buck v. bell buck v. bell were cited by the jacobson court as basis for the legitimacy o' mandatory vaccinations. in a bit o' legal irony which will no doubt be lost on many, the primary argument antivaxxers is gonna embrace to advance their claim that they cannot be forced to submit to compulsory vaccinations will be the so-called right o' bodily integrity which is at the heart of roe v. wade. bodily integrity is not an absolute right as an individual may be forced to submit to a blood-alcohol test, but forced to unwilling endure 9-months o' gestation is too much for the Constitution to bear... at least that is the law as o' 11/24/2020. vaccinations is not a simple blood draw but is instead injecting a foreign substance into the human body, and while the chances o' harm resulting from covid-19 vaccinations will be low, those chances won't be zero and the potential harms will not be understood fully for some time to come. e.g. is doubtful many pregnant women were part o' the covid-19 vaccination candidate safety trials, and in the past there has been vaccinations which has had unexpected and harmful effects on unborn children. so, not like forced pregnancy, but not like blood-alcohol tests. as such, the new SCOTUS majority's first opportunity to neuter roe v. wade will likely arrive as the result o' antivaxxers fighting against compulsory vaccinations. so, IF you want roe v. wade to survive this iteration o' SCOTUS, you is necessarily gonna need be rooting for the antivaxxers? is actual only an extreme small number o' religious faiths in the US which reject vaccinations, but there will be a few first amendment challenges to vaccinations as well. the vaccine legal battles in the US is gonna get ugly and is gonna confuse many. (in this space, pretend as if we added your favorite "celebrate good times" meme or kool & the gang reference) HA! Good Fun!

trump, much like obama, has taken control over his party and trump has far less restraint than his predecessor in wielding his popularity to compel actions he wants taken. if you are a red state governor where trump is popular, then you need trump support to get elected. is not a function o' the office, but rather party politics. were similar with obama, but the degree and nature o' the pressure applied by each President were different. less frequent but more sinister, trump did functional hold a few blue state governors hostage during the recent covid crisis. if CA or NY wanted ppe or testing resources, the governor were told by wh staff that the president would need hear nice words from the governor. public displays o' approval were demanded in exchange for supplies during a pandemic? trump is so far outside the norm. good riddance.

final sentence is no more true for a President than a SCOTUS Justice... and such a misunderstanding only highlights @Guard Dog observation 'bout local representatives. homeless in nashville and memphis is far less affected by trump decisions than by state and local elected officials. seems our brand o' federalism here in the USA is also gross misunderstood. ... @Hurlshot has his work cut out for him. HA! Good Fun! ps amusing example which am guessing won't prove the point, but the county we live in, and three of four adjacent counties, has sheriffs who has public stated they is not gonna enforce the newish CA state covid-curfew. however, is multiple municipalities within those counties where local police will be enforcing the curfew albeit to varying degrees.

"federal agencies" is a bit misleading but only by a small degree. example: the CBO is a federal agency, but is not executive branch. Congress and the Judiciary include w/i the scope o' their authority federal agencies, although the number o' such agencies and the personnel beholden to Congress and Courts is miniscule compared to executive branch agencies. that said, am suspecting almost nobody read our article link. powers o' the President: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." doesn't sound particular powerful, does it? the other powers o' the President is legislative in origin and scope or they is resulting simple from the fact the President is the most visible member o' the national government. is also worth nothing that as often as not in US history, POTUS has not been the leader o' the political party to which the President belongs. POTUS is not a head o' state in any legal sense, but when the leader o' the dominant political party holds the office o' the President and a complicit Congress and Judiciary enables the chief executive at every turn, then the result is a functional head of state. however, is not the office itself which provides the powers o' a head of state. HA! Good Fun!

correct, which is why we said we don't have such here in the USA. the highest position in our fed government is Congress, not the President, and is no single leader o' Congress such as is found in parliamentary systems. as we said, is a widespread misunderstanding 'bout our president. HA! Good Fun! ps "coequal branches" is not how the founders saw it. hamilton in the federalist papers explicit noted the judiciary were the weakest o' the three branches and were strong implied that the executive were weaker than Congress. gotta think back to 1787 and how different were the fed government. in 1789(?) President washington tried to hire a handful o' night watchmen to guard the treasury building in philadelphia. this unilateral act set off a Constitutional crisis.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii can't find "head of state" anywhere. we do not have a genuine head of state here in the USA. we got a democratic republic and the President, 'ccording to article ii, is having powers largely limited to foreign affairs. however, Congress has delegated power to the Presidency. the thing is, Congress can take such powers back, not that it will ever happen. IF the federal government has authority over the homeless in various states, such authority is limited and it is derived through Article I powers. is much misunderstanding 'bout the actual role and power o' the US President. electoral college makes far more sense if one is understanding what the President is 'posed to be. HA! Good Fun!

technical this is wrong. trump don't have a doctorate, but biden, harris and pence all have JDs. juris doctorate. in most US jurisdictions it is possible to receive a masters o' law to satisfy the legal education education requirement. is a cheesy doctorate, but a jd is technical a doctorate. gary johnson's highest level o' education were, we believe, a bs... not certain though. weld had a jd. jorgenson, johnson, cohen and weld did not claim any military service. HA! Good Fun!

one? mr. shinkle? no damage at all. however, if the other republican, mr. langevelde, also refuses to certify, then at the very least we got confusion... however, mr. langevelde, the other republican, does not appear to be buying into the rnc arguments which claim an audit is warranted and demanded. HA! Good Fun!

double, but the michigan board o' o' state canvassers is streaming live... if delayed. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/23/will-michigan-certify-election-results/6388530002/ is s'posed at least one republican holdout, but am not even gonna try and make a prediction. HA! Good Fun!

indeed. hardly the laundry list o' reputable sources which suggested there were more than lawrence. we end as we began-- your speculation backed by nothing save your belief that they are all bad. no evidence whatsoever that the lawrence issue were other than a blunder by folks other than clinton as well as kinda compelling evidence the democrats o' the day did not support the sale of plots for donors scheme you claimed. whole lotta nothing... save one dead rat who faced the ultimate indignity, albeit in death. this will not be the last time gd speculates and adds facts to his recollection to reach a conclusion which is little more than a minor variation on the, they are all bad theme you have embraced beyond reason. even when sources you supply reject your stated position, you tighten your grip on the basic premise that shapes too many o' your posts in this thread. am here with the rolled up newspaper. will be here next time too. HA! Good Fun!

what reputable news sources? the actual reputable news sources point out how there were no proof o' wrongdoing and even the veterans groups which were initial angered relented and admitted error... as we quoted from the tampa article. so, one guy who lied to the folks in charge o' granting waivers (not clinton) and were subsequent disinterred. no support that democrats defended the policy o' selling arlington plots as you claimed. no support for any claim you initial made save that one guy, not granted a waiver by clinton, were a donor to democrat political causes and when his perfidy were uncovered, his wife dug up his bones and moved 'em to california. hardly the equivalency you were trying to craft, eh? gd is indulging in trump's "some people say," nonsense. alt-right radio or his own wishful thinking has him creating whataboutism nonsense and then misrepresenting articles to prove a point he should not have made w/o double-checking facts. bad gd, bad. HA! Good Fun! ps gd should read actual sources he supplied rather than simple attempting to compile a list which looks better than a single source. https://www.deseret.com/1997/11/20/19346658/did-clinton-sell-plots-in-military-cemeteries "The president and this administration consider Arlington National Cemetery and other national and veterans cemeteries across the country to be hallowed ground," White House special counsel Lanny Davis said. "It would be outrageous for anyone to grant or influence the granting of exceptions under the rules for burial at national cemeteries because of political or fund-raising considerations." Davis said a report to be published in the Dec. 8 issue of Insight magazine, a publication of The Washington Times, was "based on anonymous sources and innuendo, not the facts." the entire kerfuffle started 'cause o' an insight magazine article which relied on an anonymous source for details. not washington times & insight magazine. nothing wrong with anonymous sources, but the only additional reporting failed to find any evidence which were incriminating. the desert news and tampa bay articles don't genuine support your position and they offer not even a suggestion there were indeed additional political donors who were unjust granted waivers.

@Guard Dog clinton waivers... not clinton term. the us military independent granted waivers. from an article you selective (bad gd. bad.) reference: "The waivers granted by Clinton were to former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and to Elvera Burger, widow of retired Chief Justice Warren Burger. A third was to a District of Columbia police officer and Marine veteran killed in the line of duty, and the fourth to a Drug Enforcement Administration agent and Army veteran killed while on a mission in Peru." the fifth were a subsequent tax court judge. "Several veterans groups said they were satisfied by the secretary's explanation and added that they regretted the anger the accusations had caused among thousands of veterans. ""It would appear that the anonymous accusations that have been floating around were unfounded," said John F. Sommer, executive director of the American Legion." btw, when it were discovered ambassador lawrence had lied 'bout military service, he were disinterred from arlington. so find us the democrats who were supporting the notion o' political favors for arlington. so far your list o' political donors who maybe got the arlington treatment from clinton is reduced to one, and even he ain't actual in arlington. am getting the newspaper ready again, 'cause gd never learns. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting you know the answer to your own question. the founders would suggest you has inverted the problem. seeing as how the US (1787) doesn't have any standing armies or a navy, the requirement o' military service as a prerequisite to the office o' the Presidency is bordering on paradox. 'course on a more basic level, you are making a suggestion which helped get heinlein labeled, inappropriate we would suggest, as a fascist. btw, your clinton story is bogus. clinton granted five arlington waivers: a SCOTUS Justice, a member o' the US Tax Court, a dea agent and army vet killed in peru, a washington dc police officer and marine veteran killed while on duty... and the wife of a SCOTUS Justice, but not the same Justice we mentioned earlier in the list. the political donors story were right-wing media shlock which gained traction with a fringe element o' 1997ish conservatives and am suspecting has been resurrected as a predictable flavour o' whataboutism. no proof were ever supplied for the late 90s story and is hardly as if democrats at the time were defending-- most all democrats were suggesting your story were complete bs as 'posed to supporting clinton for his granting o' political favours. that said, am thinking it were wrong for clinton to have granted his five waivers. weren't as if he were the first President to do so, but the sanctity o' arlington is diluted if tax court judges who never served in the military, much less combat, is being buried in arlington. although the "wife of _________," situation is a bit fuzzy 'cause o' the extreme long tradition o' spouses being interred with previously deceased combat vets. ... am waiting for gd to realize that getting his facts from alt-right radio shows will result in the rolled newspaper treatment from Gromnir almost every time. HA! Good Fun!

turkey is kinda meh, but we like the other stuff. we got 'bout a dozen sweet potato recipes we rotate through and a half dozen brussel sprout options. dressing (stuffing) appeals to us as a quixotic endeavour-- why would anyone let bread become stale, dampen with a fluid and then try and bake it into goodness? we have a handful o' dressing/stuffing options we actual do enjoy but am rare having an excuse to use during +11 months of the year. oh, and we like cranberries. admitted, w/o a considerable amount o' sweet, cranberries is vile. orange and apple both compliment cranberries well. mashed potatoes ain't our thing, but spuds is extreme versatile. is a yukon gold and brussel sprout combo we use 'round thanksgiving. is a cast iron pan recipe where we fondant the potatoes for extra crispy goodness. most o' the flavor comes from scotch whiskey and a bit o' balsamic. am also admitting that we have become much better at making gravies in the last decade or so. good gravy will make even white meat turkey appetizing. nevertheless, am gonna enjoy having an excuse this year to not multi-day prepare and cook for thanksgiving. HA! Good Fun!