how can this not legally be election fraud and misrepresentation of facts? if you claim to be a damn plumber or hairdresser & go into business, you'd better be trained/licensed to do that job. does lying to the voters and everyone else prove his bona fides as a Republican "politician"...? is this the abyss in the mud to which The Chump has dragged us ? absolutely anything goes???
Israel. You can call them what you want.
"the truth shall set you free!" or put you behind bars, lol... the numbers are against them. their only path to winning on a national level is to stifle the urge/ability to vote on the other side. gerrymandering like little bitches will hold back the socialist hordes waiting to ravage their precious entitlements, but only for a little while.
Anywhere else you get caught lying on your resume, you get the boot right away.
The solution to the Clarence Thomas problem is to establish new rules/laws governing how ethics issues concerning the SCOTUS are handlled. That being said with how the house and senate will be set up for the next two years that's not likely to happen. We can probably count on every Republican or at least 99% of them, voting against anything that will hold the SCOTUS accountable for any ethics violations. As hard as the founders tried to set up a government with sufficient checks and balances to keep each of the branches in check, it surprises me that so often when we need to make laws to strengthen those checks and balances it involves the very bodies we want to reign in, to make or rule on the laws concerning those checks and balances. At the moment the only people who can really do anything about the SCOTUS justices violating ethics are the justices themselves but their not likely to take positions that can be turned on them later on down the road.Robert Reich has some very real concerns about Clarence Thomas, but I suspect proving Thomas' impartiality is in question, sufficiently to prove a violation of the law, is a stretch at best, I think. Especially since it would be the same SCOTUS ultimately hearing such an allegation down the road.
Robert B. Reich: What do we do about Clarence Thomas? - Tribune Content Agency (December 26, 2022)
Trump’s legal problems are mounting — with growing probability of criminal prosecutions for his attempted coup, theft of top-secret documents, and tax fraud. You know where all this is going to end up, right? The Supreme Court. What are the chances that Trump’s three appointees along with the...tribunecontentagency.com
Preferably with one of those ball gags to shut her up.i could see her tied down on a table...
Yeah in pretty much any other career field if you were caught lying that blatantly on your resume/application even if after it was after you've already started working you would be immediately terminated. When it comes to political office though once they get elected they become dug in like ticks and are extremely difficult to remove.
the Bar association vets lawyers for judgeships etc & rates them. then, the Federalist Society tells The GOP which of them are in their pocket. that is who The Chump put on the Supreme court. vetting is okay, but not seating someone for lying like Santos (or some recently appointed SC justices) did would be much more preferable. it's gonna be interesting watching this play out...
is the GOP utterly without scruples, morals, ethics of ANY kind? they're going to have to PROVE it to me now, because it looks like "win at all costs regardless of how heinous the action taken might be" is now their mantra...
thehill.com
i'm registered as a Republican, but now vote as an independent. getting rid of The Chump is going to be frighteningly easy compared to the effort required to rid the party of Chumpism, a disease which was festering in much of the base before The Chump even lent them his name. they've ALWAYS been assholes...they just weren't visible.
Chump helped take the party to a whole new low and welcomed the deplorables out from their holes in the ground.
What's subtly hilarious about the whole story is that there are two groups being blamed for dropping the ball on catching this guy before he got elected. One is the Democrats and the other is the Media. Currently out there on the internet there is a debatr going on as to which is most responsible. Fair arguements could be made for either choice, the Democrats obviously didn't do much opposition research and had they done so they would have had a substantial amount of ammo to use against the guy to keep him from getting elected. The Media obviously didn't look into the guy too much otherwise the would have had all sorts of the sort of scandalous stories they like to run to keeep ratings high.the Bar association vets lawyers for judgeships etc & rates them. then, the Federalist Society tells The GOP which of them are in their pocket. that is who The Chump put on the Supreme court. vetting is okay, but not seating someone for lying like Santos (or some recently appointed SC justices) did would be much more preferable. it's gonna be interesting watching this play out...
