The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cain said:
Yeah. Why would anyone divorce a Trump? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Only because marrying one in the first place doesn't make sense.

I figure once you've crossed that bridge, why not stick it out. In for a penny, in for a pounding.
 
The best people.

In November 2013, a judge ordered Jafry and a fuel company he chaired to repay more than $800,000 to the family of Alfred Oglesby, a former NFL player and investor in the fuel firm, who died in 2009. Oglesby’s widow accused Jafry of fraud. Jafry has not paid the money. Debt collectors said they had been trying to locate him for years.

David Freedman, an attorney for Oglesby’s family, said he was surprised Jafry had resurfaced in an influential role in the government. “If he is advising Donald Trump we’re screwed – we should just surrender to North Korea right now,” said Freedman.

Jafry denied the lawsuit’s allegations. He said he never received Oglesby’s investment, so he didn’t owe Oglesby’s family money.

Having arrived in the US in about 2005, Jafry was the subject of several other legal actions in Texas. Owners of gas stations that Jafry tried to buy sued him and his business associates, repeatedly accusing Jafry of fraud and breaching contracts.
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
BREAKING: Trump is firing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster.
Click to expand...

'Bout time, sadly. Man never made a lick of sense as a part of this administration. I had high hopes in the beginning but it became obvious that his influence over the POTUS was limited (if he had any at all).
 
Stacko said:
The best people.
Click to expand...
Professional debt-collectors can't locate this guy, but the Trump administration stumble on him by accident. How many more of these chancers are currently on the gumment's dime? Professional debt-collectors are no doubt mining the available data as we speak.

One record said Accel signed an $800,000 deal with Hud on 26 September 2017 to “provide expert guidance” in helping senior Hud officials “to embrace change and provide dynamic leadership”.
Click to expand...
OMFG. "Embrace the Change." "Endeavour to Persevere". These are your tax-dollars, TBG; why isn't Trump doing anything about that? What kind of business is he running?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
If they are going to grow one, they'll do it around July. The only way to salvage the midterm election is to keep sucking up to Trump until the primaries are over, then do a complete 180 and attack him with everything they've got. Impeachment hearings, everything. They have to appear more anti-Trump than the Democrats if they want to keep the existing Dem wave from becoming a tsunami.

But they can't do it until then, because their dwindling base is still conditioned to support whoever the most rabidly insane candidate appears to be. If they jump the gun they'll get primaried by someone who isn't just acting crazy.
Click to expand...

The problem with that theory is that they could do the 180 as soon as the filing deadline for candidacy has passed. I think it has in most states but I am unaware of a number of incumbents make the turn.
 
Experts have investigated the wreck and reached some preliminary conclusions. The train was being driven by some monkeys who, excited by their recent acquisition of keys, were proceeding at unsafe speeds to the banana plantation. Having no regular fuel, the monkeys tried to power the train with a dumpster fire. These hazardous conditions would have likely resulted in a trainwreck even if at some point the monkeys hadn't attempted to cut their noses off to spite their faces (possibly inspired by psychological issues stemming from past incidents involving falling out of the ugly tree) and then lost any vestige of control. The trainwreck is therefore as severe as it was inevitable. The only astonishing aspect is that it keeps on happening and shows no sign of being done. Speculation is that this may be related to one being born every minute.
 
Belz... said:
I suppose you mean that this sort of thing will set precedents and lead to less democracy in the future?
Click to expand...

I agree with dudalb so if I had posted that I would have meant that the well-run, two-party democracy needs a conservative party that is based in reality, recognizes the need for compromise, respects the norms and traditions of society, and is unstinting in its support of the rule of law.

As a result of Trump, the present-day GOP is utterly lacking in those attributes. So where do we go for that needed balance to the Dems? And what happens if we fail to find such a party. I fear an overwhelming dominance by Dems just as much as I fear the same about the GOP.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Experts have investigated the wreck and reached some preliminary conclusions. The train was being driven by some monkeys who, excited by their recent acquisition of keys, were proceeding at unsafe speeds to the banana plantation. Having no regular fuel, the monkeys tried to power the train with a dumpster fire. These hazardous conditions would have likely resulted in a trainwreck even if at some point the monkeys hadn't attempted to cut their noses off to spite their faces (possibly inspired by psychological issues stemming from past incidents involving falling out of the ugly tree) and then lost any vestige of control. The trainwreck is therefore as severe as it was inevitable. The only astonishing aspect is that it keeps on happening and shows no sign of being done. Speculation is that this may be related to one being born every minute.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Civet said:
Only partly. Communications made during the marriage are still privileged.
Click to expand...

Not to digress too far, but does "marital privilege" prevent a spouse from choosing to testify against the spouse about anything he/she did or learned during the marriage? I would think angry spouses would do pretty much anything they could to hang the ex out to dry.
 
Bob001 said:
Not to digress too far, but does "marital privilege" prevent a spouse from choosing to testify against the spouse about anything he/she did or learned during the marriage? I would think angry spouses would do pretty much anything they could to hang the ex out to dry.
Click to expand...

Privilege regarding the communications made during the marriage is held by both spouses and does not extinguish upon divorce. She can't be compelled nor can she waive it unilaterally.
Testimonial spousal privilege - that she cannot be compelled to testify against him - is a privilege she holds (and can waive) and ends once they divorce.
There are exceptions to these and these are roughly the federal versions. There's some variance from state to state if a matter is being handled in state court.
 
Civet said:
Privilege regarding the communications made during the marriage is held by both spouses and does not extinguish upon divorce. She can't be compelled nor can she waive it unilaterally.Testimonial spousal privilege - that she cannot be compelled to testify against him - is a privilege she holds (and can waive) and ends once they divorce.
There are exceptions to these and these are roughly the federal versions. There's some variance from state to state if a matter is being handled in state court.
Click to expand...

Can that really be right? If the wife of a mob boss learns that hubby ordered a hit -- or is laundering Russian money -- she can't voluntarily tell the authorities? Suppose Dad confesses to Mom that he molested their child? Suppose one spouse is the victim of the other's investment scam, and only learns about it because he/she revealed it? I understand that the spouse can't be compelled, but can he/she really be prevented from testifying voluntarily? Are there ways around that? And surely it only applies to what one spouse may have said to another, not to anything the innocent spouse might have actually witnessed him/herself?
 
Civet said:
Privilege regarding the communications made during the marriage is held by both spouses and does not extinguish upon divorce. She can't be compelled nor can she waive it unilaterally..
Click to expand...

Can you give any citation for this?
Because AFAIK this is plain false.
 
Bob001 said:
Can that really be right? If the wife of a mob boss learns that hubby ordered a hit -- or is laundering Russian money -- she can't voluntarily tell the authorities? Suppose Dad confesses to Mom that he molested their child? Suppose one spouse is the victim of the other's investment scam, and only learns about it because he/she revealed it? I understand that the spouse can't be compelled, but can he/she really be prevented from testifying voluntarily? Are there ways around that? And surely it only applies to what one spouse may have said to another, not to anything the innocent spouse might have actually witnessed him/herself?
Click to expand...

It has to be a communication. So his ex could testify about seeing him commit a crime but not him telling her about it. There are exceptions but I don't know all of them off the top of my head. I know one is that she can reveal a confidential spousal communication if the communication itself was a crime. Like "Look baby, I need you to launder this money with me."
 
What, exactly, would be the legal means with which a spouse could prevent their partner from testifying against them?
The question is not what they are allowed to say, but what a court is allowed to accept as evidence/testimony.
 
Civet said:
Nope. Two different privileges like I said earlier. Re-read my post and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

If I understand what you're saying....

A spouse can choose to testify to something they have seen with their own eyes.

A spouse can choose to testify about something their spouse said if saying it was a crime - the example you gave was being asked to commit a crime.

A spouse cannot choose to testify about something their spouse has said to them if the communication itself is not a crime. If the spouse confesses to committing a crime, then this is privileged.
 
CapelDodger said:
I doubt you have the slightest idea how utterly weird your country seems out in the normal world. Schools as a low-key war-zone has actually become normalised in your thinking. "The answer is obvious : Kevlar vests should be part of a school's uniform. And bullet-proof textbooks should be standard." It beggars belief.
Click to expand...

I saw a segment on TV about bullet-proof backpacks, made as two sections that could be opened to wear as a vest. We now live in a world where such a product is commercially viable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom