Quote:The chances of this lawsuit being successful appear to be negligible. University of California, Irvine, law professor Rick Hasen said flatly "this won't work," while Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called it "insane."

(12-28-2020, 09:45 PM)DHBirr Wrote: Ummm ... wow.  Just wow.  Some Republicans are filing a lawsuit against Vice President Mike Pence, intended to make him disregard the Democratic electors and replace them with Republican electors.

Quote:The chances of this lawsuit being successful appear to be negligible. University of California, Irvine, law professor Rick Hasen said flatly "this won't work," while Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called it "insane."

(12-24-2020, 08:55 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: And the answer is a qualified yes. The following comes from The Washington Post (here; if you've used up your free reads at the Post this month, Google Cache is your friend):

Quote:A person may refuse to testify, even when subpoenaed, on the grounds that the testimony may expose him to criminal liability. But if the prospect of criminal liability disappears — whether because he has been granted adequate immunity by prosecutors, or because he has accepted a presidential pardon — then the privilege against self-incrimination also disappears. “If the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed.” Brown v. Walker (1895); see also, e.g., Nixon v. Sampson (D.D.C. 1975) (yes, that Nixon). (Remember that, as with President Richard Nixon, a pardon can preclude future criminal prosecutions, and not just erase past ones.)

There's more than that, including the option to refuse a pardon to preserve one's fifth amendment rights, but the article is surprisingly short and succinct. Worth a read.

And you can be sure that while prosecutors are thoroughly aware of this, it may have escaped Trump entirely.

(12-26-2020, 02:54 PM)Norgarth Wrote:

Quote:Mr Lin's conspiratorial tweets began on Wednesday, when he questioned why Justice Roberts was discussing Mr Scalia's successor prior to his death, insinuating Justice Roberts knew something about Justice Scalia's impending death. Justice Scalia was nearly 80 years old with a history of high blood pressure and heart issues.
...
Comparatively, that was the most normal element of the tweet; after pondering Justice Robert's motives, he then asked if the chief justice was a member of any "club or cabal requiring minor children as an initiation fee."

(01-01-2021, 12:35 PM)Jinx999 Wrote: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1345024601827520512

Quote:This is not available to you

(01-01-2021, 01:42 PM)robkelk Wrote:

(01-01-2021, 12:35 PM)Jinx999 Wrote: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1345024601827520512

Quote:This is not available to you

(01-01-2021, 01:42 PM)robkelk Wrote:

(01-01-2021, 12:35 PM)Jinx999 Wrote: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1345024601827520512

Quote:This is not available to you

(01-01-2021, 06:22 PM)classicdrogn Wrote: Twitter no longer allows you to see anything but a page telling you to turn on javascript or stop using twitter, so my answer is obvious. Which is not your problem, but still annoying enough that I can't help but bitch about it.

Quote:“Bottom line is, the court is saying, ‘We’re not going to touch this, you have no remedy,’” said Gohmert. “Basically, in effect, the ruling would be that you got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM [Black Lives Matter].”

Quote:The 11 senators largely acknowledged Saturday they will not succeed in preventing Biden from being inaugurated on Jan. 20 after he won the electoral college 306-232. But their challenges, and those from House Republicans, represent the most sweeping effort to undo a presidential election outcome since the Civil War.

Quote:publicity stunt