With the amount of honest absurdity around these days it's impossible to tell.A textbook example of sarcasm.
I was hoping Pelosi would get to take over. With Schumer as her VP.
I never imagined that American politics could ever descend to the level where it needed it's own version of Poe's Law.With the amount of honest absurdity around these days it's impossible to tell.
To clarify anybody's misconceptions, there is no line of succession for the VP. There is only a line of succession to the presidency. When the office of the VP is open, the president nominates a replacement or leaves it vacant; the Speaker doesn't automatically assume that role. Gerald Ford, for example, was nominated by Nixon to replace Agnew.
And Schumer is the majority leader. Next in line after Speaker is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, currently Patrick Leahy.
That’s not how it works. If you have evidence of a crime you don’t have to wait to sued by someone else before you can present the evidence of the crime.Perhaps it's was the only way he's able to present it in court?
That’s not how it works. If you have evidence of a crime you don’t have to wait to sued by someone else before you can present the evidence of the crime.
That would be stupid.
In actuality evidence was presented over 60 times to the American courts (such as they are) and the evidence did not stand up in said courts.
I’m surprised you did not see it on TV: it was on all over the world.
I saw enough of it to see that a different set of circumstances existed with those other cases. This time the evidence is being presented by a defendant rather than a plaintiff.
And if you can't see how that makes a difference, then perhaps you didn't watch enough episodes of Matlock.
It is extremely rare for fraud to occur in US elections, and in the last 50 years or so it is virtually unheard of for fraud to occur at any sort of meaningful scale.Didn't say there. But its hardly unusual when it happens.
Right -- this time "evidence" is being presented by someone who will say and do whatever it takes to keep from being sued into bankruptcy.
You consider Matlock to be an accurate depiction of the American legal system -- how you were not invited to join Donald's legal team is a mystery to us all.
It is extremely rare for fraud to occur in US elections, and in the last 50 years or so it is virtually unheard of for fraud to occur at any sort of meaningful scale.
What's a mystery to me is people treating a lighter side of the news story as a serious matter. Not to mention taking my comments about it seriously.
It wasn't being taken all that seriously before you showed up.
Exactly what difference does being the defendant make to the legitimacy of the evidence?I saw enough of it to see that a different set of circumstances existed with those other cases. This time the evidence is being presented by a defendant rather than a plaintiff. And if you can't see how that makes a difference, then perhaps you didn't watch enough episodes of Matlock.
Since no one else has been able to prove it, it doesn't seem like he has much more of a chance of succeeding.
LOL! Talk about heads exploding. Now I would've loved that.I was hoping Pelosi would get to take over. With Schumer as her VP.
Regardless, they've no real choice but to sue.