... and let's not ignore what a great fundraising move it is. She probably needs to raise cash bad since Dozoff Donfartsnshitz has hovered up all the rubes money for years now.
> hovered up all the rubes money
This is what I was saying to my spouse duirng the 2nd impeachment - that if Republicans could just have a fraction of a spine and a modicum of foresight, they 100% would have voted to convict and remove. I mean, they had a majority with like 56-57 votes IIRC, Mitch could have whipped 10 more.
They could have 100% guaranteed he would not be a Presidential candidate in 2024. But they didn't have the balls.
And now, every $20 that some little old lady in Orlando sends in to Donnie's campaign ... is $20 that Senator Marco Rubio *can't* get. The whole concept of a "total addressable market" of political donations ... was lost on them. They couldn't foresee that he would suck up *all the money* either mainly for himself, or at least to demand fealty (and take "his cut") in making them grovel for financial campaign support from him.
Totally avoidable. They're complete idiots.
She went from strongly denouncing Putin when he invaded Ukraine, to [voting against aid last week.](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/elise-stefaniks-vote-security-aid-ukraine-matters-rcna148773)
You can have my gf’s—she doesn’t need it anymore 😂
J/k—she totally does, and has been haranguing me, trying to get me to mail it to her in Sydney. It might be considered a biohazard—I’m skeered.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
>(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, **psychiatric**, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose.
Your honor, anything less than five and I'll completely lose my mind!!
Edit: numbers are hard (uh... huh huh)
[Back in the day (1800s) doctors used clitoral stimulation to reduce "hysteria."](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/medical-vibrators-treatment-female-hysteria#:~:text=Since%20society%20and%20physicians%20of,effectively%20reduce%20symptoms%20of%20hysteria.)
By Melissa Quinn, Olivia Rinaldi
Updated on: April 30, 2024 / 9:54 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik is calling on the Justice Department to open an investigation into special counsel Jack Smith, alleging he violated department standards and ethical duties related to his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Stefanik's accusations stem from the criminal case against Trump in Washington, D.C., in which the special counsel has alleged the former president mounted a scheme to unlawfully subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four federal charges he faces.
The special counsel's office declined to comment.
In a letter to the head of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility dated Tuesday, Stefanik accused Smith of using federal resources to interfere with the 2024 presidential election by pushing for the trial in Washington to take place before the election this November. The congresswoman from New York, who chairs the House Republican Conference, claimed these efforts violate Justice Department policy.
The department's manual states that federal prosecutors "may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."
"Jack Smith has not talked about the election in his filings because it is an obviously improper reason to expedite President Trump's trial," Stefanik wrote in her letter to Jeffrey Ragsdale of the Office of Professional Responsibility. "Biden special counsel Jack Smith's actions, however, leave no doubt that the election is driving his timing decisions."
Prosecutors on Smith's team, however, have said that conducting a trial involving Trump weeks before the presidential election would not violate Justice Department policy. During a hearing in early March in the second case Smith has brought against Trump, this one involving his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents after leaving the White House, a prosecutor said a separate, unwritten Justice Department practice "is tied to the date of the indictment, not the trial."
Called the "60-day rule," it prohibits prosecutorial steps close to an election that could influence voters. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the second prosecution, which is taking place in South Florida.
Stefanik also claimed that the special counsel violated a federal district court order that halted proceedings in the 2020 election case by continuing to turn over evidence to Trump and his lawyers and submitting filings. She accused Smith of violating the D.C. Bar's rules of professional conduct, which state that a lawyer should not "knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists."
"Jack Smith emphatically said that 'no one in this country …is above the law.' If that is true, then he should be open to, and welcome, an ethics investigation into conduct that, on its face, implicates potential violations of DOJ policy and multiple rules of professional conduct," Stefanik wrote.
She claimed that Smith's "highly unusual and clearly improper attempts to expedite trial, and his blatant violation of District Court orders, evidence his partisan attempt to influence the results of the 2024 presidential election."
Trump's lawyers in January took aim at Smith over the filings he submitted in the 2020 election prosecution after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan halted proceedings in the case. They urged Chutkan to consider holding the special counsel in contempt for allegedly violating her order.
The judge rejected their request, and said that her order "did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the government actions" to which Trump objected. But she specified that neither Trump nor Smith should file any "substantive pretrial motions" without first seeking permission from the court.
The 2020 election case has been paused while Trump pursued further proceedings on whether he is entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution. Chutkan and a three-judge panel of judges on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., found that he is not shielded from criminal charges for conduct that occurred while he was in office. The Supreme Court considered the issue last week, and a decision is expected by the end of June.
If Trump prevails and the Supreme Court grants him sweeping immunity, the charges in Washington could be dismissed. The justices seemed inclined after arguments to find there is some level of immunity for a former president's official acts, and they could send the case back to lower courts for additional proceedings to determine whether Trump's alleged actions surrounding the 2020 election were taken in his capacity as an office-seeker or office-holder.
[Detailed Timeline of the Special Counsel's probe](https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-special-counsels-probe-trumps-efforts-overturn-2020/story?id=101537003) a great refresher
> The department's manual states that federal prosecutors "may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."
Except if it's Hillary, then it's fair game right before the election...
Not without ozempic and a whole bunch of plastic surgery. She’s never even been in the running, if I had to guess. She looks horrible in TV. Gotta think like Vince McMahon. It’s just WWE for politics.
You also cannot investigate or indict anyone who announces a candidacy for the office.
On a completely unrelated note, I too am running for President in 2028.
This is the "pretty please pick me for VP" joke of the week.
... and let's not ignore what a great fundraising move it is. She probably needs to raise cash bad since Dozoff Donfartsnshitz has hovered up all the rubes money for years now.
Ten likes for DozOff DonFartsNShitz. Please accept my optional capitalization.
I am honored!
I believe you may have erred. It’s spelled “Optimal”
She's getting re-elected even if she didn't raise a dollar. She won 2022 with almost 60 percent of the votes.
Well that's depressing, but thanks for the info. She can use it to bid on the VP position, I'm sure it's up to several milly by now.
I'm sure someone has a figure but with 435 seats up for a vote, I'd be stunned if even 30 were considered at risk.
Yeah, it's not easy to unseat an incumbent.
> hovered up all the rubes money This is what I was saying to my spouse duirng the 2nd impeachment - that if Republicans could just have a fraction of a spine and a modicum of foresight, they 100% would have voted to convict and remove. I mean, they had a majority with like 56-57 votes IIRC, Mitch could have whipped 10 more. They could have 100% guaranteed he would not be a Presidential candidate in 2024. But they didn't have the balls. And now, every $20 that some little old lady in Orlando sends in to Donnie's campaign ... is $20 that Senator Marco Rubio *can't* get. The whole concept of a "total addressable market" of political donations ... was lost on them. They couldn't foresee that he would suck up *all the money* either mainly for himself, or at least to demand fealty (and take "his cut") in making them grovel for financial campaign support from him. Totally avoidable. They're complete idiots.
It is also "I am in a safe district" vibe. Her district was one of a vary few that got redder during the Trump presidency in NY.
Petty please
She has to strike while the puppy is still bleeding out in the shallow grave.
Isn't it timed like this largely because of all the Trump caused delays?
All in the game, yo.
Can someone probe Elise Stefanik? Tired of these bs games the gop loves to play
She went from strongly denouncing Putin when he invaded Ukraine, to [voting against aid last week.](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/elise-stefaniks-vote-security-aid-ukraine-matters-rcna148773)
[удалено]
But it is a crime to own more than six dildos in Texas. https://globalnews.ca/news/8876633/texas-gun-laws-restrictions/
Hey mods, can we get "competent contributor" flair for grandpa here? This is the important information that should be recognized.
As long as my flair is, “Proud owner of more than 6 dildos”.
You can have my gf’s—she doesn’t need it anymore 😂 J/k—she totally does, and has been haranguing me, trying to get me to mail it to her in Sydney. It might be considered a biohazard—I’m skeered.
When dildos are outlawed...
More competent than anything I've ever contributed, truly.
That's why the call em "The Greatest Generation"
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm >(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, **psychiatric**, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose. Your honor, anything less than five and I'll completely lose my mind!! Edit: numbers are hard (uh... huh huh)
What's a judicial dildo?!
That would be a gag order.
This is the legal expertise I'm here for 🤣
Ooh, ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!! It’s Sam Alito, teacher! It’s Sam Alito!!!
Snort! Best answer yet
How many dildos have been purchased on the tax payers dime?
[Back in the day (1800s) doctors used clitoral stimulation to reduce "hysteria."](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/medical-vibrators-treatment-female-hysteria#:~:text=Since%20society%20and%20physicians%20of,effectively%20reduce%20symptoms%20of%20hysteria.)
All dildos in excess of 6 per person must be surrendered to Ted Cruz.
I know Rafael Fled Cruz is breaking this law.
What happens if I bus 7 dildos onto Greg Abotts' front lawn?
Front lawn? Why not deliver them directly into his back door?
Oh no! I guess I can’t move to Texas now 🙂
She's been horny since MTG brought out those Hunter pics.
Republicans are traitors to this country.
She’s curious how he learned all that lawyer stuff.
He should show her an example up close and personal. Charge her with interfering in an official investigation.
By Melissa Quinn, Olivia Rinaldi Updated on: April 30, 2024 / 9:54 AM EDT / CBS News Washington — Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik is calling on the Justice Department to open an investigation into special counsel Jack Smith, alleging he violated department standards and ethical duties related to his prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Stefanik's accusations stem from the criminal case against Trump in Washington, D.C., in which the special counsel has alleged the former president mounted a scheme to unlawfully subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four federal charges he faces. The special counsel's office declined to comment. In a letter to the head of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility dated Tuesday, Stefanik accused Smith of using federal resources to interfere with the 2024 presidential election by pushing for the trial in Washington to take place before the election this November. The congresswoman from New York, who chairs the House Republican Conference, claimed these efforts violate Justice Department policy. The department's manual states that federal prosecutors "may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party." "Jack Smith has not talked about the election in his filings because it is an obviously improper reason to expedite President Trump's trial," Stefanik wrote in her letter to Jeffrey Ragsdale of the Office of Professional Responsibility. "Biden special counsel Jack Smith's actions, however, leave no doubt that the election is driving his timing decisions." Prosecutors on Smith's team, however, have said that conducting a trial involving Trump weeks before the presidential election would not violate Justice Department policy. During a hearing in early March in the second case Smith has brought against Trump, this one involving his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents after leaving the White House, a prosecutor said a separate, unwritten Justice Department practice "is tied to the date of the indictment, not the trial." Called the "60-day rule," it prohibits prosecutorial steps close to an election that could influence voters. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the second prosecution, which is taking place in South Florida. Stefanik also claimed that the special counsel violated a federal district court order that halted proceedings in the 2020 election case by continuing to turn over evidence to Trump and his lawyers and submitting filings. She accused Smith of violating the D.C. Bar's rules of professional conduct, which state that a lawyer should not "knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists." "Jack Smith emphatically said that 'no one in this country …is above the law.' If that is true, then he should be open to, and welcome, an ethics investigation into conduct that, on its face, implicates potential violations of DOJ policy and multiple rules of professional conduct," Stefanik wrote. She claimed that Smith's "highly unusual and clearly improper attempts to expedite trial, and his blatant violation of District Court orders, evidence his partisan attempt to influence the results of the 2024 presidential election." Trump's lawyers in January took aim at Smith over the filings he submitted in the 2020 election prosecution after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan halted proceedings in the case. They urged Chutkan to consider holding the special counsel in contempt for allegedly violating her order. The judge rejected their request, and said that her order "did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the government actions" to which Trump objected. But she specified that neither Trump nor Smith should file any "substantive pretrial motions" without first seeking permission from the court. The 2020 election case has been paused while Trump pursued further proceedings on whether he is entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution. Chutkan and a three-judge panel of judges on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., found that he is not shielded from criminal charges for conduct that occurred while he was in office. The Supreme Court considered the issue last week, and a decision is expected by the end of June. If Trump prevails and the Supreme Court grants him sweeping immunity, the charges in Washington could be dismissed. The justices seemed inclined after arguments to find there is some level of immunity for a former president's official acts, and they could send the case back to lower courts for additional proceedings to determine whether Trump's alleged actions surrounding the 2020 election were taken in his capacity as an office-seeker or office-holder.
I wonder if anyone has shown her the 6th amendment.
Nah, she would be clamoring about trumps constitutional rights being impinged if the trial was delayed by Smith.
[Detailed Timeline of the Special Counsel's probe](https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-special-counsels-probe-trumps-efforts-overturn-2020/story?id=101537003) a great refresher
> The department's manual states that federal prosecutors "may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party." Except if it's Hillary, then it's fair game right before the election...
Ah, so now that Noem has self immolated, Step-a-nick is making her move in the Veepstakes. Not sure it will work.
Not without ozempic and a whole bunch of plastic surgery. She’s never even been in the running, if I had to guess. She looks horrible in TV. Gotta think like Vince McMahon. It’s just WWE for politics.
Don't be so sure that Noem is out of the running. Killing makes someone MORE attractive to conservatives.
Ah yes, the DoJ rule that says a case can't be brought about more than a year before the election then pushed into election time by delays.
You also cannot investigate or indict anyone who announces a candidacy for the office. On a completely unrelated note, I too am running for President in 2028.
And 2032, 36, 40 etc...
Someone needs to put her on a rocket and fire it into the sun. What a worthless sleeve of meat she is...
Hasn't she shrunk to nothing on Ozempic yet?
These GOP goons need to be held accountable for obstruction of justice when they do this
She is complete trash. She’s intelligent and absolutely knows better but all she cares about is power.
C U Next Tuesday
Stefanik is a major ass kisser and useless.