I guess that's one way to get your legal bills paid.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
When is the donald trump jr. appointment? 🤡
He will be appointed "president" when king Trump will be on his deathbed, possibly 40 years from now, because the absolute worst of us never seem to die.
These guys are the test to see how far he can push it.
Who is in charge of the cocaine-fueled underage fuck parties?
Trump doesn't leave that shit to amateurs.
Matt Gaetz.
Ahhh yes, the new Secretary of Pedophilia.
must owe him some money
When has he ever paid his lawyers out of his own pocket?
I get the feeling USA is becoming a monarchy and Trumps high-ranking friends will be the new nobles.
This is what the state is.
So wait is it Gatez or this guy?
This guy is deputy AG, gaetz is AG.
This guy is pick for deputy AG. Not AG.
While prestigious, I have to think the type of lawyer who wants Trump for a client is hardly goingbto want to do heavy government work for a civil servant's salary. Surely there's way more cash in skip-and-falls and "get six divorce punches on your loyalty club card and the 7th is free".
The cash is in the favors you can do for people, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that ~~bribes~~ gratuities are perfectly legal. It's no accident that Trump now wants to remove taxes on "tips". As of right now, if you "tip" your Deputy AG to fix a case for you, it needs to be reported to the IRS. If there are no taxes on "tips", they are not reportable to anyone, and no pesky reporter can report your "tip" income.
Wow, this is entirely too plausible. Why isn't their reporting on it?
There was, when the ruling first came down. Responsible journalists tend to operate on events, with facts that can be verified. When the ruling happened, there were a lot of "Here's what this means" articles, talking in the abstract about things that haven't happened yet. They only got published because they were timely because of the ruling.
Now, we have no actual information that this guy is gonna grift "gratuitues" out of his position, other than he's a Trump insider and that's what they do. But responsible outlets won't report on it unless there is clear evidence.
Now if we find out there are facts backing up the idea, these responsible journalists have already done a lot of the legwork, so they just add the new facts and can publish something timely again.