When did we start caring about this subject again?
Someone else signed it, but that's not a "forgery". "Forgery" is a legal conclusion made by a judge. Right now it's a "questioned document". And it's unquestionably signed by someone other than Pelosi, but perhaps with her permission. Which would be odd.
"You didn't fire me! I quit!"
Especially with the 12 year old dog tied to 84 years old as a human being, which is pretty much how old [RBG] was
Panama
He proposed to violate a rule for conscience sake knowing that said rule had already been changed and that his histrionics were meaningless….
Absurdity arguing that the Covington teens are now public figures because they were attacked publicly, and doxxed, and therefore actual malice has to be demonstrated. Absolutely absurd.
What if they "accidentally" released it all, on PF?
Last time she just went to some other meeting. They're not required to be there.
Note: (MS)NBC/Buzzfeed
I suggest Anons stock up on flash drives.
Just as the Constitution does not require a speech by the president (some have sent written messages), the justices of the Supreme Court do not have to show up for the event. There isn’t a time-honored, consistent norm of judicial attendance in American history. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in a 2010 interview, whether to attend is “up to each individual member of the Court.” Why a justice might make that decision – and why a majority of justices may have chosen to go to the past six speeches – is the subject of a recent article published by the Justice System Journal, “Keeping up Appearances: Non-Policy Court Responses to Public Opinion.”
It's in this bread, and if you look at the placeholders in PF, it's there too. Q will self-terminate after dumping everything on PF, thereby giving power (info) back to the people.
Not my bag
We usually have some pretty good lawfags here. An unauthorized signature is a questioned signature, not a "forgery", as "forgery" is a crime, and requires a judge.