hey

oldfag guise

this information relating to Trump might as well be Q crumb ??

Comms to us?

to dig?

Trump's formal answer to his impeachment starts off by misspelling United States

Trump's lawyers also MISQUOTE THE CONSTITUTION

in the key passage arguing that the Senate trial is unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 says "ANY office of honor." Trump's lawyers write "AN office of honor.

THESE tweeters and retweeters do not get it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1356678893961441281

Michael Malice

@michaelmalice

https://mobile.twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1356678459989385218

Judd Legum

@JuddLegum

Trump's formal answer to his impeachment starts off by misspelling "United States."

It goes downhill from there.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1356700879395696643

Judd Legum

@JuddLegum

Replying to

@JuddLegum

UPDATE: Trump's lawyers also MISQUOTE THE CONSTITUTION

in the key passage arguing that the Senate trial is unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 says "ANY office of honor." Trump's lawyers write "AN office of honor."

Replying to

@JuddLegum

and

@mehdirhasan

So, am I reading this correctly…that the Senate is limited in what it can do with Impeachment, 1) remove from office; and, 2) forbid holding office again? The Trump defense is that these are sequential powers (cannot do 2 until 1 is complete); I read it as an and/or limitation

Pink Floyd fan

@Apples4short

·

6h

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which reads that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

The key word is ‘all.’ . . . It does not say ‘the Senate has power to try impeachment against sitting officers.’

gavelguy

@jxf74

·

4h

Yep. And the House impeached him while he was in office so the Senate must hold a trial.

>>12806119>> mispellings and punctuation???

Representatives by breaking the allegations out into 8 Avertments and,

BBuehler

@BBoola24

·

7h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

I don't think I've ever followed the word "and" with a comma.

>>12806119

>>12806157

>>12806119

>> mispellings and punctuation???

Representatives by breaking the allegations out into 8 Avertments and,

BBuehler

@BBoola24

7h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

I don't think I've ever followed the word "and" with a comma.

>>12806119

>>12806173

>>12806151

https://twitter.com/_ladder_MD/status/1356701578980425728

Pool Ladder, MD

@_ladder_MD

Replying to

@JuddLegum

I dare anyone to write an impeachment lawyer misquoting the constitution into a comedy screenplay that doesn’t get rejected for being too unclever

just what Q loves is being made fun of and everyone mocking

them BAM

https://hollywoodlife.com/2021/02/02/donald-trump-typo-impeachment-response-unites-states/

FEBRUARY 2, 2021 4:43PM EST

Trump Trolled For Misspelling United StatesIn Formal Answer To Impeachment

Samantha Wilson

POLITICAL NEWS EDITOR

Former president Donald Trump’s response to his impeachment was riddled with typos, including one glaring error in the very first line. What’s the ‘Unites’ States of America?

Donald Trump‘s formal answer to his January 13 impeachment for “incitement of insurrection” not only came three weeks late, but was delivered with a glaring typo. The former president’s statement, released February 2, is addressed to “The Honorable, the Member of the Unites States Senate.” This simple, but completely avoidable mistake isn’t the worst of it. Not by a long shot.

The filing comes from Trump’s two new defense lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, who signed on after his original impeachment legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, resigned. The brief contains two central themes, that impeaching a former president is unconstitutional (it’s not), and that Trump’s First Amendment rights were allegedly violated. It also includes several allusions to Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him by voter fraud.

While arguing about unconstitutionality, Castor and Schoen… misquoted the United States Constitution. They write: “Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states ‘[j]udgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy AN office of honor…'” The Constitution actually says “ANY office of honor.” Trump’s defense lawyers are arguing their case on a misreading, insisting that because the former president has already left office, he cannot be removed.

Needless to say, the former president and his lawyers are getting roasted on Twitter. “I dare anyone to write an impeachment lawyer misquoting the constitution into a comedy screenplay that doesn’t get rejected for being too unclever [sic],” one Twitter user wrote in response to seeing the typos. “You’d think you could copy/paste that at least,” another person tweeted. “Trump, as usual, is getting what he‘s too cheap and unwilling to pay for,” one Trump critic quipped.

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on January 13, one week after his supporters stormed Capitol Hill on his command. Inside, a joint session of Congress was counting Joe Biden’s electoral votes to certify him as president. The violent insurrectionists burst into the Capitol building, searching for lawmakers and leaving destruction in their wake. They had all just come from a rally where Trump told them to march to the Capitol and fight for their country. His Senate impeachment trial begins February 8.

>>12806119

tons af errors

>>12806230

>>12806119

hahahahaaa dig it

>>12806119

Trump's defense to the House impeachment article

Feb 2, 2021

pdf

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/16bdafa3-e0b8-4353-b541-0e7409ebad89/note/45a27d31-ddb9-443c-974b-decedb2e8254.#page=1

IN THE SENATE

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ANSWER OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP, 45TH PRESIDENT OF

THE UNITED STATES, TO ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:

The 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, through his

counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby responds to the Article

of Impeachment lodged against him by the United States House of

Representatives by breaking the allegations out into 8 Averments and,

Respectfully Represents:

1. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ‘shall have

the sole Power of Impeachment’ and that the President ‘shall be removed from

Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high

Crimes and Misdemeanors.’”

Answer 1:

Admitted in part, denied in part as not relevant to any matter properly

before the Senate. It is admitted that the Constitutional provision at

Averment 1 is accurately reproduced. It is denied that the quoted provision

currently applies to the 45th President of the United States since he is no longer

“President.” The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold

office to be impeached. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the

clause ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for

>>12806119

>>12806290

the Senate to accomplish, and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is

void ab initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language

of the Constitution. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states “[j]udgment in

cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and

disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor…” (emphasis added). Since

removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent

which must occur before, and jointly with, “disqualification” to hold future

office, the fact that the Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th

President whose term has expired, means that Averment 1 is therefore

irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.

1. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits

any person who has ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against’ the United

States from ‘hold[ing] any office…under the United States’.

Answer 2:

Admitted in part, denied in part, and denied as not relevant to any matter

properly before the Senate. It is admitted that phrases from Section 3 of the

14th Amendment to the Constitution are correctly replicated in Averment 2. It

is denied that the 45th President engaged in insurrection or rebellion against

the United States. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that as a

private citizen, the Senate has no jurisdiction over his ability to hold office and

for the Senate to take action on this averment would constitute a Bill of

Attainder in violation of Art. I, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.

>>12806119

>>12806302

The 45th President asks the Senate to dismiss Averment 2 relating to the 14th

Amendment as moot.

1. In his conduct while President of the United States – and in violation of

his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United

States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the

Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to

take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Answer 3:

Denied, and irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate. It is

denied that the 45th President of the United States ever engaged in a violation

of his oath of office. To the contrary, at all times, Donald J. Trump fully and

faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at all times

acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution

of the United States, while never engaging in any high Crimes or

Misdemeanors. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the clause

‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ referenced at Averment 1

above is impossible, and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab

initio as a legal nullity patently contrary to the plain language of the

Constitution. As the present proceedings are moot and thus a nullity since the

45th President cannot be removed from an office he no longer occupies,

Averment 3 is irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

>>12806119

>>12806309

1. Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by

inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the

House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a

joint session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the

months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false

statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of

widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or

certified by State or Federal officials.

Answer 4:

Admitted in part, denied in part, and denied as irrelevant to any matter

properly before the Senate. It is admitted that on January 6, 2021 a joint

session of Congress met with the Vice President, the House and the Senate, to

count the votes of the Electoral College. It is admitted that after the November

election, the 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the

Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since

with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic

“safeguards” states election laws and procedures were changed by local

politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures.

Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that

the 45th President’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies

they were false. Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First

>>12806119

>>12806316

Amendment. Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is

unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of

Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from

government retaliation. If the First Amendment protected only speech the

government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no

protection at all. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the

Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on

Impeachment for…’ is impossible since the 45th President does not hold office

and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity

rendering Averment 4 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

1. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump,

addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse in Washington DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.”

Answer 5:

Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that President Trump

addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse on January 6, 2021 as is his right

under the First Amendment to the Constitution and expressed his opinion that

the election results were suspect, as is contained in the full recording of the

speech. To the extent Averment 5 alleges his opinion is factually in error, the

45th President denies this allegation.

>>12806119

>>12806323

1. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged – and

foreseeably resulted in – lawless action at then Capitol, such as: “if you don’t

fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Thus, incited by

President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to,

among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional

duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached

and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel,

menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional

personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious act.

Answer 6:

Admitted in Part, denied in part. It is admitted that persons unlawfully

breached and vandalized the Capitol, that people were injured and killed, and

that law enforcement is currently investigating and prosecuting those who were

responsible. “Seditious acts” is a term of art with a legal meaning and the use

of that phrase in the article of impeachment is thus denied in the context in

which it was used. It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to

engage in destructive behavior. It is denied that the phrase “if you don’t fight

like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” had anything to do with

the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election

security in general, as evidenced by the recording of the speech. It is denied

that President Trump intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes.

As is customary, Members of Congress challenged electoral vote submissions

by state under a process written into Congressional rules allowing for the

7

respective Houses of Congress to debate whether a state’s submitted electoral

votes should be counted. In 2017, Democratic Members of Congress

repeatedly challenged the electoral votes submitted from states where President

Trump prevailed. In 2021, Republican Members of Congress challenged the

electoral votes submitted from states where President Biden prevailed. The

purpose of the Joint Sessions of Congress in 2017 and on January 6, 2021 was

for Members of Congress to fulfill their duty to be certain the Electoral College

votes were properly submitted, and any challenges thereto properly addressed

under Congressional rules. Congress’ duty, therefore, was not just to certify

the presidential election. Its duty was to first determine whether certification of

the presidential election vote was warranted and permissible under its rules.

1. “President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior

efforts to subvert the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential

Election. Those prior efforts, included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during

which President Trump urged the secretary of state Georgia, Brad

Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential

election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

Answer 7:

Admitted in part. Denied in part. Denied as irrelevant to any matter

properly before the Senate. It is admitted that President Trump spoke on the

telephone with Secretary Raffensperger and multiple other parties, including

several attorneys for both parties, on January 2, 2021. Secretary Raffensperger

>>12806119

>>12806329

or someone at his direction surreptitiously recorded the call and subsequently

made it public. The recording accurately reflects the content of the

conversation. It is denied President Trump made any effort to subvert the

certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. It is denied that the

word “find” was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing

his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined one would “find that

you have many that aren’t even signed and you have many that are forgeries.”

It is denied that President Trump threatened Secretary Raffensperger. It is

denied that President Trump acted improperly in that telephone call in any

way. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the Constitutional

clause from Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment

for…’ is impossible since the 45th President does not hold office rendering the

current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity making

Averment 7 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

1. “In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the

United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity

of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and

imperiled a coequal branch Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as

President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Answer 8:

Denied, and denied as irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

It is denied that President Trump ever endangered the security of the United

States and its institutions of Government. It is denied he threatened the

>>12806119

>>12806335

integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of

power, and imperiled a coequal branch Government. It is denied he betrayed

his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Rather, the 45th President of the United States performed admirably in his role

as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the

American people. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that in the

United States, the people choose their President, and that he was properly

chosen in 2016 and sworn into office in 2017, serving his term to the best of

his ability in comportment with his oath of office. Since the 45th President is

no longer “President,” the Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be

removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for the Senate to

accomplish since the 45th President does not hold office, meaning the current

proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity rendering

Averment 8 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

To the extent there are factual allegations made against the 45th President of

the United States contained in Article I that are not specifically addressed

above, said allegations are denied and strict proof at time of hearing is

demanded.

Legal Defenses

To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:

The 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, through his

counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby avers that the Article of

Impeachment lodged against him by the United States House of

>>12806119

>>12806341

Representatives is facially and substantively flawed, and otherwise

unconstitutional, and must be dismissed with prejudice. In support thereof,

the 45th President,

Respectfully Represents:

1. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President

because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the

Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to

removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under

our Constitution.

1. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President

because he holds no public office from which he can be removed rendering the

Article of Impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question.

1. Should the Senate act on the Article of Impeachment initiated in the

House of Representatives, it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of

Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.

1. The Article of Impeachment misconstrues protected speech and fails to

meet the constitutional standard for any impeachable offense.

1. The House of Representatives deprived the 45th President of due process

of law in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment by ignoring it own

procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century. The lack of due

process included, but was not limited to, its failure to conduct any meaningful

committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair

>>12806119

>>12806345

consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to

conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions

to be heard in the House Chamber. No exigent circumstances under the law

were present excusing the House of Representatives’ rush to judgment. The

House of Representatives’ action, in depriving the 45th President of due process

of law, created a special category of citizenship for a single individual: the 45th

President of the United States. Should this body not act in favor of the 45th

President, the precedent set by the House of Representatives would become

that such persons as the 45th President similarly situated no longer enjoy the

rights of all American citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The actions by

the House make clear that in their opinion the 45th President does not enjoy

the protections of liberty upon which this great Nation was founded, where free

speech, and indeed, free political speech form the backbone of all American

liberties. None of the traditional reasons permitting the government to act in

such haste (i.e exigent circumstances) were present. The House had no reason

to rush its proceedings, disregard its own precedents and procedures, engage

in zero committee or other investigation, and fail to grant the accused his

“opportunity to be heard” in person or through counsel – all basic tenets of due

process of law. There was no exigency, as evidenced by the fact that the House

waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over

and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did.

Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in

America, especially in the Congress of the United States.

>>12806119

>>12806351

1. The Article of Impeachment violates the 45th President’s right to free

speech and thought guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

1. The Article is constitutionally flawed in that it charges multiple instances

of allegedly impeachable conduct in a single article. By charging multiple

alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it

impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutional mandate in Article

1, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 that permits a conviction only by at least two-thirds of the

members. The House charge fails by interweaving differing allegations rather

than breaking them out into counts of alleged individual instances of

misconduct. Rule XXIII of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate

When Sitting on Impeachment Trials provides, in pertinent part, that an article

of impeachment shall not be divisible thereon. Because the Article at issue

here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article, it would be impossible to

know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article, or just on parts,

as the basis for vote to convict. The House failed to adhere to strict Senate

rules and, instead, chose to make the Article as broad as possible intentionally

in the hope that some Senators might agree with parts, and other Senators

agree with other parts, but that when these groups of senators were added

together, the House might achieve the appearance of two thirds in agreement,

when those two thirds of members, in reality, did not concur on the same

allegations interwoven into an over-broad article designed for just such a

>>12806119

>>12806358

purpose. Such behavior on the part of the House of Representatives may have

a less nefarious reason, in the alternative, and simply be a by-product of the

haste in which the House unnecessarily acted while depriving the 45th

President of the United States of his American right to due process of law. The

45th President of the United States believes and therefore avers that the defect

in the drafting of the Article requires that Senators be instructed that if two

thirds of them fail to find any portion of the Article lacking in evidence

sufficient for conviction, then the entire Article fails and should be dismissed.

1. The Chief Justice of the United States is not set to preside over the

proceedings contemplated by the Senate, as he would be constitutionally

required to do if the House was seeking to have the president removed from

office under Art. I, Sec 3, Cl. 6 of the United States Constitution. Once the 45th

President’s term expired, and the House chose to allow jurisdiction to lapse on

the Article of Impeachment, the constitutional mandate for the Chief Justice to

preside at all impeachments involving the President evidently disappeared, and

he was replaced by a partisan Senator who will purportedly also act as a juror

while ruling on certain issues. The House actions thus were designed to

ensure that Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over the proceedings,

which effectively creates the additional appearance of bias with the proceedings

now being supervised by a partisan member of the Senate with a long history of

public remarks adverse to the 45th President. The 45th President believes and

therefore avers that this action of the House of Representatives, additionally,

>>12806119

>>12806366

violated his right to due process of law because the House, effectively,

maneuvered an ally in the Senate into the judge’s chair.

WHEREFORE, Donald John Trump, 45th President of the United States

respectfully requests the Honorable Members of the Senate of the United States

dismiss Article I: Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in

violation of the Constitution, because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove

from office a man who does not hold office. In the alternative, the 45th

President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the

allegations raised in the article of impeachment.

Respectfully Submitted,

________

Bruce L. Castor, Jr.

David Schoen

Counsel to the 45th

President of the United States

Date: February 2, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-trump-s-defense-to-the-house-impeachment-article/3af5c2c7-7c39-48da-83ce-091f0aaebf5b/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

>>12806119

someone please paste the images

easier to share and read

14 pages

not just the text

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-trump-s-defense-to-the-house-impeachment-article/3af5c2c7-7c39-48da-83ce-091f0aaebf5b/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

>>12806395 <<<< paste here

pdf pages

someone please paste the images

easier to share and read

14 pages

not just the text

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-trump-s-defense-to-the-house-impeachment-article/3af5c2c7-7c39-48da-83ce-091f0aaebf5b/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

>>12806119

the internet is full on mocking Trump re: this document

they do not get COMMS at all

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1356700879395696643

guise hahahaha 1871 kek:

https://twitter.com/c0linM/status/1356708210275713026

Colin Mack

@c0linM

·

6h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

Oh, such a nitpicker. Everyone knows that precise language is not really a thing in legal circles…

https://twitter.com/DoN0tEat/status/1356705742674423809

DoNotEat

@DoN0tEat

·

6h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

But you see this is actually the masterstroke. By accepting this Document, the Senate implicitly accepts the contents, thereby surrendering Jurisdiction in the "United States" for Jurisdiction over "Unites States". Furthermore, the last Flag to enter the capitol lacked fringe…

DoNotEat

@DoN0tEat

·

4h

Replying to

@DoN0tEat

and

@JuddLegum

I should have capitalized Capitol and Fringe at least. Probably one or two other random words.

https://twitter.com/_ladder_MD/status/1356701578980425728

Crystal Blue heart Colorado Dem Voter CO-3

@Crystal_Resists

·

5h

Replying to

@_ladder_MD

SNL!! Can't wait.

But, they have to be specific, and explain the obvious, or it won't come across as funny.

But we'll all get it. Most of us. We'll all get the joke.Smiling face with open mouth and smiling eyes-

https://twitter.com/alandgri/status/1356703852398002182

Ａｌａｎ Ｇ - Missouri Election Judge!

@alandgri

·

6h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

I mean it's not like the constitution is to be taken literally, right?

Phil or something

@FillipQuinn

·

6h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

and

@rezaaslan

It's comforting to know that even as Donald's lawyers change, their lawyering ability does not.

https://twitter.com/GriffenBurkes/status/1356707722884956168

Edward G. Gowan SAF, Rainbow flagFour leaf cloverBlue heartMan surfingFace with medical maskSnowflakeBear face

@GriffenBurkes

·

6h

Replying to

@JuddLegum

Just reading that I can see that this sentence trial for impeachment is going to be good theater, maybe a little bizarre too at times. What else would you expect from 45 then complete and utter chaos.

>>12806478 <<<<<<

all these tweets are mocking Trump

so funny to read their glee retards

as I am an old fag

I I can see what Trump is doing

do not think Q is gone

venue is on vacation that is all

he is showing us in this document

>>12806119

>>12806478

>>12806506

>>12806119

>>12806290

oldfags do not forget

hi djt

love you no homo

>>12806532

>>12806478

>oldfags do not forget

>hi djt

>love you no homo

>>12806530

video should be soon

>>12806530

pm hot dog run

>>12806530

joe just woke up

pm incontinence pads

run to CVS

>>12806561

dead people and darkness

weird old joe

Trump aides made a late request to Team Biden to extend their parental leave. They said no.

The Trump political appointees said they were surprised they were turned down. The White House says they shouldn’t have been.

By DANIEL LIPPMAN

02/02/2021 09:47 PM EST

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/02/parental-leave-trump-aides-465302

After four years in the Trump administration, Vanessa Ambrosini was looking forward to three months of parental leave when she and her husband welcomed a baby a week before Christmas.

The Commerce Department’s human resources office had given her approval for it.

But then she was surprised to find out the benefit was no longer available because of the change in administration.

“I got completely screwed,” she said in an interview. “There were no caveats in that language saying anything about if the administration turns, you get nothing and of course, that happened and so I got nothing.”

Ambrosini is among a number of ex-Trump political officials who lost their parental leave when Joe Biden was sworn into office. It’s a byproduct of the field they’re in: Their boss (the president) may have been the one let go, but his departure has meant that they, too, lose their jobs and benefits. Still, they argue that the Biden administration should have honored their leave by keeping them on payroll until the end of it — a request that, emails reviewed by POLITICO show, the Biden transition did not grant.

The Biden White House declined to speak about the issue on record. Instead, an official noted anonymously that political appointees “do not enjoy the promise of federal employment past the end of the administration in which they choose to serve.” The official blamed the fact that the Trump administration dragged its heels on a quick and orderly transition as a reason why some on his team were caught off guard by the benefits ending.

“We understand that a few Trump appointees, including a handful currently on parental leave, submitted last minute requests to remain on government payroll,” the official said. “Because these requests were received so close to Inauguration Day… there was no way to implement an exception to the rule in a way that is fair to all outgoing appointees, including many who resigned as expected without making requests for extraordinary benefits.”

The official added that “appointees have been advised that they have options including COBRA and the Affordable Care Act.”

For Ambrosini and others, those options were not enough to navigate an already difficult situation. Former Trump officials face an uphill climb finding a job in a Washington D.C., where the federal government is run by Democrats. Job searching when you’re at home taking care of an infant is nearly impossible.

“With a newborn baby, it’s not like I can just jump on the job market and be like ‘hey, I’m ready to work,’” Ambrosini said. “It’s hard. No one’s going to be willing to hire me right this second because I’m still home with the baby, so it’s tough.”

Ambrosini, who was the deputy communications director at the Commerce Department and a former Trump White House official, said she had gotten approval to take parental leave from early January to late March. But she was informed a day before her baby was due on Dec. 17 that her leave would be ending Jan. 20, when the inauguration was taking place. After some deliberation, she decided to use her sick leave to cover her time off during the first three weeks of January before the inauguration.

>>12806634 continiued: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/02/parental-leave-trump-aides-465302 02/02/2021 09:47 PM EST

A pair of married former Trump Homeland Security officials said they had a similar experience. They provided POLITICO with emails showing an agency official telling them that, as political appointees, their parental leave benefits would be treated the same as those for career employees. Their baby was born on Dec. 18. Late at night on Jan. 5, the father got an email from the HR office saying that they had been wrong and that their benefit would end on Jan. 20.

“It’s one thing if you have a household, if you have one family member who works for the government,” he said. “But we were both employed by the government so we’re losing both of our opportunities for health care and both our incomes, so it’s pretty scary to have a premature baby at home and not knowing if you’re going to have an income or health insurance.”

The former DHS official and his wife wrote a letter on Jan. 13 to the Biden DHS agency review team pleading to get the full benefit. “[T]he remaining 9-10 weeks afforded to federal employees is critical to our family and livelihoods as we work to raise a strong, healthy boy under unique and unforeseen complications to our birth plan,” they wrote.

But the DHS’ Presidential Transition Office told the couple in an email on Jan. 18 that the benefits would not be rolled over into the next administration. “This is not what you were hoping to hear but I think you also knew that this was the most likely outcome,” the email read. “I am sorry to be the bearer of this news and I am sorry I don’t have other news.”

The couple declined to go on the record for fear of the political fallout if they were named publicly and how it could negatively affect future employment opportunities.

*

It was only in December 2019 that Congress passed the Federal Employees Paid Leave Act, a law championed by Ivanka Trump, which gave federal government employees up to 12 weeks paid time off for the birth of a new child. The law, which took effect last October, required employees to agree to work at least another twelve weeks after taking the benefit, though there is a question about whether that requirement can be waived.

Still, experts on parental leave policy say that the cases of these Trump officials shows the holes that still exist in the social safety net. As political appointees, they should have been aware that all benefits could end on Jan. 20 as the administration they served potentially came to a close. The experts also said that the Biden administration is under no legal obligation to grant Trump officials their leave.

But new administrations don’t immediately push out all political appointees from the prior one. And some experts said it would have set a good precedent for the Biden team to accommodate those individuals on parental leave as a means of reinforcing the importance of the policy.

“Paid parental leave is really really important for maternal health, for child wellbeing, for family connectivity, and I can’t imagine being in that new parents’ shoes and not having the finances,” said Adrienne Schweer, a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center who leads its Paid Family Leave Task Force. “Extending it to a couple people for a few months could be a good thing. There is precedent for unique circumstances, and I would love to see a good example set of ensuring that as many people as possible can have paid parental leave.”

As with virtually all employment, when a job ends so too do most of the benefits (though ex-Trump officials have been kept on government health insurance for the usual 31-day grace period). And, with Biden taking office, Trump officials asking for their parental leave to be respected in full were asking for, what in effect is, a special accommodation. The Biden administration would have needed to keep these individuals — all political appointees — in the federal government, but not working, until their parental leave ended.

*

Biden has long been a champion of parental leave benefits. After the 2019 law passed, he tweeted: “It’s about time that federal workers get paid parental leave. It is long past time that every American has 12 weeks of paid leave to address their own health needs or care for any of their loved ones.”

Trump, by contrast, was a somewhat unorthodox adopter of the cause. Republicans have long opposed federal requirements around such benefits and even as they began embracing reform it was through decidedly conservative lenses. One prominent GOP proposal called for people to be able to draw from their Social Security to pay for parental leave.

Trump officials who were given parental leave benefits argued that since it became law, it was now an entitlement — one that needed to be respected regardless of whether the presidency changed hands.

>>12806634

>>12806638 continued: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/02/parental-leave-trump-aides-465302 02/02/2021 09:47 PM EST

One former senior Trump official said he coordinated with his HR team at his agency and was told that the requirement he perform 12 weeks of work after their parental leave ended was waivable because of the extenuating circumstances of a new administration. He also reached out to the Office of Personnel Management and was told to date his resignation letter the last day of his paternity leave.

His wife had a baby girl in early December. He took three weeks of paternity leave before having to go back to work to deal with the fallout of the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot. He says he lost out on nine weeks of leave, which is equivalent to between $20,000 and $30,000.

“This isn’t an entitlement that I asked for but I feel like after four years, it was earned,” he said.

When some of the Trump political appointees found out that their full leave would not be granted, they elevated the issue to the Biden transition team. But after initially believing that the incoming administration would keep those on leave effectively employed, they soon were told otherwise. The former senior Trump official said he is now regretting his decision to stay until the end of the administration.

“I could have left earlier but I didn’t because I was told ‘hey you’ve got paternity leave coming up,’ and if I had known that you’re not going to get to use your paternity leave and you’re actually gonna just work your ass off when you have a new baby and then get fired, I probably would have made a different decision,” he said.

The former official declined to go on the record for fear that it would affect his prospects of landing a job with a salary to support a family of five.

“It makes you look like you’re desperate for work and a story about me wanting to get money is not going to work well when I’m negotiating with people I’m talking to,” he said. “I’m trying to convince everybody that I’m in a perfectly good situation.”

FILED UNDER: JOE BIDEN, JOE BIDEN 2020, PAID FAMILY LEAVE,

>>12806634

parental leave

I thought this was one of those thing s the left DEMANDED

The Biden White House declined to speak about the issue on record

re : >>12806634

>>12806660 <<<<<<<< you really are retarded quite the fag

EVERTHING blowing up is to wake people up to the full on crazy of the left as the left dimantles GOOD shit that Trump did that most will agree is/was good

people need to feel and see

this affects the new admin as well all lefties

think they will appreciate the parental leave LOSS

retard

>>12806634

>>12806659 <<<<<<<<<hey fag

>>12806680 <<<<<<<<<<<<< this IS FOR YOU

>>12806677

now do the same with Jesus

and get that charge

>>12806625

santa clarita guise

hmmmm?

>>12806625

>>12806727

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fire-on-santa-clarita-film-set-leaves-three-injured

The Santa Clarita film office, which tracks filming in the region,

says that they didn’t have any productions permitted in the area today and have no additional knowledge of the explosion or subsequent fire other than what's already been

reported.

"The city of Santa Clarita did not issue any permits for filming in the Rye Canyon area today,"

Evan Thomason, who heads the city's film office.

"Any special effects tests would be permitted by LA County Fire Film Unit, but we have no confirmation of any such tests."

>>12806630

>>12806630

the

A for asshole signage

>>12806630

>>12806772

>>12806781

Jen Psaki Donned Hammer-and-Sickle Hat During 2014 Meeting with Russian Officials - The Virginia …

The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/422681382314201088

3:47 AM ·

Jan 13, 2014

MFA Russia 🇷🇺

@mfa_russia

Russia government account

Russia responded w/ #Ushanka Hat gifted to

@statedeptspox

to stay warm&fancy during #US

#winterstorm up to

@Sochi2014

https://thevirginiastar.com/2020/12/02/jen-psaki-donned-hammer-and-sickle-hat-during-2014-meeting-with-russian-officials/

by Chuck Ross

Photos have resurfaced of Jen Psaki, the incoming Biden White House press secretary, meeting with Russian officials in 2014 while wearing a hat stitched with the hammer-and-sickle, a symbol of the communist Soviet Union, which caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the ministry, gifted Psaki the hat, a pink fur shapka, during a diplomatic event in Paris on Jan. 13, 2014.

Psaki was a spokeswoman for the State Department at the time. She was accompanied by then-Sec. of State John Kerry.

The State Department posted a photo of Psaki sporting the hat on one of its social media accounts. The Russian foreign ministry also tweeted a photo of Psaki with Kerry and Lavrov.

President-elect Joe Biden announced on Sunday that Psaki would be White House press secretary in his administration. Biden also announced last week that Kerry will be his “climate czar” and hold a position on the National Security Council.

The photo was taken just before U.S.-Russia relations would enter their tensest phase since the fall of the Soviet Union. Relations between the two countries frayed over Russia’s invasion of Crimea and its interference in U.S. elections.

Psaki was not known for being particularly soft on Russia, and she is not known to have publicly supported communism. The state-controlled media outlet RT referred to her in an article on Monday as a “Russian sanctions aficionado.”

But the hammer-and-sickle emblazoned on Psaki’s hat has for more than a century been viewed as a symbol of Soviet-style communism and totalitarianism.

The hammer-and-sickle’s affiliation with Soviet communism has led to a push from some quarters to treat it in the same vein as the Nazi swastika. Advocates for that position assert that the Soviet Union directly or indirectly caused tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century through war, executions, purges and man-made famine.

According to an estimate by Russia expert David Satter, at least 20 million Russians were put to death or died as a direct result of Soviet policies.

Nearly 4 million Ukrainians are believed to have died during a famine from 1932-1933 referred to as the Holodomor, which translates to “death inflicted by starvation.”

The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

– – –

Chuck Ross is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Photo “Jen Psaki” by MFA Russia.

>>12806831

>https://thevirginiastar.com/2020/12/02/jen-psaki-donned-hammer-and-sickle-hat-during-2014-meeting-with-russian-officials/

>>12806831

>Jen Psaki Donned Hammer-and-Sickle Hat During 2014 Meeting with Russian Officials - The Virginia …

>The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

>>12806837

Mar 18, 2020

The "Last Trump' Technology

entire vid is interdasting

shuman

@5:20

@5:47

forward

https://youtu.be/nCtTfdpyxjU