- Dec 3, 2009
- 39,331
- 19,778
These Fox dummies asking for Trump to get the Nobel!????? Lmaooooooo
Yo if that happens...smh
Yo if that happens...smh
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These Fox dummies asking for Trump to get the Nobel!????? Lmaooooooo
Yo if that happens...smh
You do realize that those presidential appointments are subject to the whim of whoever is in office right now, don't you?When your “lesser of two evils” looks like this , you’re already in hell.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5aaab803e4b0fcbdb4a3510a
It seems like the main arguments against Pelosi are:
- She is not black, Latina, young or blue collar and thus has trouble connecting with the former demographics, who are our Party's core, nor can she appeal to the latter two groups whom we must win/win back.
- She should have resigned after the 2010 midterms, the way that a British Prime minister resigns, whether it is fair or not, after any sort of major defeat.
- Her name acts a s powerful cudgel in House races all over the Country.
- She does not excite the center left or the hard left base.
The main arguments for Pelosi are:
- She has to get elected every two years and she does just that.
- She is a skilled parliamentarian and that is the minority leader/speaker's main requirement for those jobs. The DNC chair is in charge of winning elections.
- Who ever replaces her will quickly become a lightening rod for conservatives. I could imagine Tim Ryan, within six months, being painted as a gun grabbing, Volvo driving, socialist, cultural Marxist. That's to say nothing of Keith Ellison or Barbara Lee or Maxine waters.
Stormy Daniels may face more than $20 million in damages for violating a "hush agreement" that requires her to remain silent about an affair she alleges she had with President Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007.
The potential damages against Daniels, an actress in adult films whose real name is Stephanie Cliffords, were disclosed Friday in a filing in federal court in Los Angeles by Essential Consultants LLC, an entity that was set up by Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in 2016 to pay her $130,000 in exchange for her silence.
The company moved the lawsuit, filed by Daniels last week in California state court against Trump, to federal court, saying that neither Daniels, Trump nor the LLC are California residents and the amount of damages exceeds the $75,000 limit for a case to proceed in state court. Trump supports the transfer of the case between courts, according to Essential Consultants’ filing.
“It could be a strategic move to intimidate them,” said Joseph Rothberg, a lawyer with Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP in Woodland Hills, California. “They may be saying, ‘We’re not going to make it easy for you.”’
Federal judges, who are appointed by the president, are perceived as somewhat more conservative than California state court judges, who are elected, according to Rothberg, who isn’t involved in the case. On top of that, the anti-Trump sentiment in California may have played a role in the decision, Rothberg said.
Daniels faces $1 million in damages for each violation of the agreement, according to Friday’s filing. Essential Consultants said it will file a request at the earliest opportunity to force Daniels to arbitrate the case privately rather than to litigate it in open court.
She sued on March 6 to nullify the confidentiality agreement she says she struck with Cohen in October 2016, before the presidential election, to keep quiet about the alleged affair. She argues the document is invalid because Trump didn’t sign it, even though she took the $130,000 offered in exchange for her silence. Cohen has said he paid it himself, through a company he set up.
“The fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20 million in bogus ‘damages’ against a private citizen, who is only trying to tell the public what really happened, is truly remarkable,” Michael Avenatti, Daniels’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement. “We are not going away and we will not be intimidated by these threats.”
I don't think we need to worry about that one
What are you mentioning me in regards to this?
It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day.