>>5198224 (PB)

The wall is already being built. That point remains, too.

>>5197883 (PB)

This is a slide and it has gone far enough.

>>5197897 (PB)

So WL said, in effect, BTFO and the SC thinks this is significant? "Hi!" "Fuckoff". That hardly sounds like a crime.

>>5197905 (PB)

Link, please. Yo no twitto.

>>5197909 (PB)

They can't seem to make up their mind if he's a dead white guy or an arrested black guy. Part of me wonders if they decided not to arrest the black guy because the prosecutor is lame on, well, prosecuting crime, and just decided to blame one of the dead white guys already on the floor. Or shoot a fresh one.

>>5198093 (PB)

Apparently the laws regarding 5th amendment protections vary greatly depending on your employment status. OTOH, the DOJ could refuse to let him retire while the OIG still has need of his testimony.

>>5198493 (PB)

Nothing is "veto proof" on the first vote. Even if the vote was 100-0, the President can still veto it, make his argument for changes to Congress and the public and hope for a better piece of legislation. Don't listen to the MSM bullshit … if you don't have a copy of the Constitution on your desk, you need to get one. If Congress changes the bill and sends it back to the President he can veto it again. It's only "veto proof" when an unchanged version of the bill has made its second trip to his desk with the necessary number of votes. Then, he can still refuse to sign it but he can't keep it from becoming law. If he still feels strongly enough about it, he can then challenge it in the courts … so even a super majority does not mean that a bill will survive and become the law of the land.

The Constitution. Read it.

>>5198535 (PB)

That is the vote they would have to send it BACK with AFTER the President vetoed it.

Vote (pass) → President (veto) → Re-Vote (2/3) → LAW → court challenges ? → law ?

It ain't over until the fat lady says "screw it" and goes home to get good and drunk.