Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So Jen Pskaki has these two guys on - Neil Katyal and Andrew Weissman - and boy are they spewing some crazy shit [View all]PufPuf23
(8,858 posts)110. Same thread from yesterday that has been bumped up because there are new responses.
Poster admittedly should have noted sarcasm but was still obvious sarcasm to most.
New poster made a clever post.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So Jen Pskaki has these two guys on - Neil Katyal and Andrew Weissman - and boy are they spewing some crazy shit [View all]
FHRRK
Mar 10
OP
Time and again these legal heavyweights are proven correct in their analysis of court events.
rubbersole
Mar 10
#14
You again with this crappola? What are you trying to prove? You posted this yesterday...
brush
Mar 12
#103
Both have solid, legal credentials and experience to back up what they say and question.
brush
Mar 10
#69
A sarcasm thingie is needed. Why would you call out those 2 and not think you would get severe pushback?
Srkdqltr
Mar 10
#17
A sarcasm gif is definitely needed. Your post sounds like it's from a trolll. This "crazy shit" is no joking matter.
brush
Mar 10
#72
My only concern with the two is they may have too much face in the legal system
Bobstandard
Mar 12
#117
My question has always been whether it really matters how TFG is funding the bond.
Ocelot II
Mar 10
#11
I have always thought that it was Musk who is putting up the collateral or cash for the bond.
Bev54
Mar 12
#111
Here we are running against the most vile candidate in history, and we are worried about a bond that will make
Silent Type
Mar 10
#13
Yup. Maybe he got a sack of money to pay for it when Orban visited Mierda-Lardo.
Ocelot II
Mar 10
#27
The judge has to approve the bond. If he thinks there was something untoward about it,
Ocelot II
Mar 10
#78
I agree completely. Why insult and demean people who are just asking questions?
Irish_Dem
Mar 10
#41
Let's see, Donald didn't have the money, met with dictators, now he has the money.He shouldn't get benefit of the doubt
Walleye
Mar 10
#36
Regardless of who put up the actual money, Trump HAS TO file it as "income" on his taxes.
world wide wally
Mar 10
#50
He is my guess of who guaranteed the bond, as I said in an earlier comment, that does not
Bev54
Mar 12
#112
Glad I missed the 2, I'd have thought it's Collateral, and wonder why they think there's more to it than that.
elleng
Mar 10
#60
You're responding to a post I made yesterday. He/she just posted the same thing today.
brush
Mar 12
#104
Same thread from yesterday that has been bumped up because there are new responses.
PufPuf23
Mar 12
#110
omg! ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THEY WERE IMPLYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T TRUST TRUMP TO BE ABOVE BOARD?
orleans
Mar 10
#65
If Trump becomes President his bond is a national security risk and we should know who he's beholden to.
LetMyPeopleVote
Mar 10
#70
The fact that TFG is or may be beholden to third parties or foreign govts will be an issue
LetMyPeopleVote
Mar 10
#88
Why sarcasm emojis serve a useful purpose, and why no one should disdain their use.
ShazzieB
Mar 10
#97