charisstoma

Andrew Napolitano is a Fox News senior judicial analyst. He's being sidelined because he's not supporting the Fox network's party line.
Read it all the way through. It's interesting.

https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-impeachment-inquiry/andrew-napolitano-debunked-impeachment-lies-hes-been-sidelined-foxs-live

ANDREW NAPOLITANO (HOST): What does it take to remove a president from office? I don't blame President Donald Trump for his angst and bitterness over his impeachment by the House of Representatives. In his own mind he has done quote "nothing wrong" and not acted outside the Constitutional powers vested in him and so his impeachment should not have come to pass. He believes that the president can legally extract personal concessions, personal political concessions, from the recipients of foreign aid, and he also believes that he can legally order his subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas.

Hence, his public denunciations of his Senate trial as a charade, a joke, and a hoax. Well, his trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms.

What are those norms? The House of Representatives -- in proceedings in which the president chose not to participate -- impeached Trump for abuse of power and contempt of Congress. The abuse consists of his efforts to extract a personal political "favor" -- the word favor is in quotes because that's the word he used in his conversation -- from the president of Ukraine as a precondition to the delivery of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine. The "favor" he wanted was an announcement of a Ukrainian criminal investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden and his son Hunter.

The Government Accountability Office -- a nonpartisan entity in the federal government that monitors how the feds spend tax dollars -- has concluded that Trump's request for a favor was a violation of law because only Congress can impose conditions on government expenditures. So, when the president imposed his own condition -- the "favor" -- he usurped Congress' role and acted unlawfully.

But, did he act criminally? And is it constitutionally necessary for the House of Representatives to have pointed to a specific federal crime committed by the president in order to impeach him and trigger a Senate trial?

Here is the backstory.

The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, this use of the word "crimes" in the Constitution does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes.

For example, as others have suggested this week, if the president moved to Russia and ran the executive branch of the American federal government from there, or if the president announced that Roman Catholics were unfit for office and so he wouldn't appoint any, he would not have committed any crimes. Yet, surely, these acts would be impeachable, because when done by the president, they are the moral equivalent of crimes and are so far removed from constitutional norms as to be impeachable.

In Trump's case, though the House chose delicately not to accuse him of specific crimes, there is enough evidence here to do so. Think about it: Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or foreign government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.

What is that evidence?

Well, it consists of administration officials' emails -- emails from people that Trump appointed -- that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. And those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and he did so pursuant to the "favor" request, and the aid sat undistributed for sixty days until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear and he released the aid.

This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery. That's the refusal to perform a governmental obligation -- distributing the money -- until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.

Well, if the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of his own Justice department?

When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with those House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's subordinates followed his orders and threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions, throwing them in a drawer, were lawful and proper, and it was the burden of the House of Representatives to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas.

Wow.

That puts the cart before the horse, because, under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." Thus the House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials.

We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Richard Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence.

Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial?

It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment, arguments that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because some Republican senators have told him so. Wow. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and to the law.

What is required for removal of the president of the United States? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in President Trump's case the evidence is ample and essentially uncontradicted.

Relatedly, Napolitano just last week said that Trump and Trump's team are not interested in hearing from him.

Mobocracy
noun
1 : rule by the mob. 2 : the mob as a ruling class.

Plutocracy
noun
1. government by the wealthy.
2. a country or society governed by the wealthy.

plural noun: plutocracies
1. an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.


A plutocracy or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term in English dates from 1631. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.

The Sherman Antitrust Act had been enacted in 1890, with large industries reaching monopolistic or near-monopolistic levels of market concentration and financial capital increasingly integrating corporations, a handful of very wealthy heads of large corporations began to exert increasing influence over industry, public opinion and politics after the Civil War. Money, according to contemporary progressive and journalist Walter Weyl, was "the mortar of this edifice", with ideological differences among politicians fading and the political realm becoming "a mere branch in a still larger, integrated business. The state, which through the party formally sold favors to the large corporations, became one of their departments."

In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, in a section entitled The Politics of Plutocracy, economist Paul Krugman says plutocracy took hold because of three factors: at that time, the poorest quarter of American residents (African-Americans and non-naturalized immigrants) were ineligible to vote, the wealthy funded the campaigns of politicians they preferred, and vote buying was "feasible, easy and widespread", as were other forms of electoral fraud such as ballot-box stuffing and intimidation of the other party's voters.

The U.S. instituted progressive taxation in 1913, but according to Shamus Khan, in the 1970s, elites used their increasing political power to lower their taxes, and today successfully employ what political scientist Jeffrey Winters calls "the income defense industry" to greatly reduce their taxes.

In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class" and defined the class, for the first time, as "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population – and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

Could so see this in a story.
hmmm Wizards' 'verse but then there'd be a need to construct the politics more in depth.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

--U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4

What is Impeachment?

Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

Constitutional Authority

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, impeachment was an established process in English law and government. The Founding Fathers incorporated the process, with modifications, into the fabric of United States government. The Constitution, however, only provides the framework-the basic who's, why's, and how's. The remaining procedural intricacies reside in the internal rules of the House and Senate.

Who?

Article 2, Section 4--"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States. . ."

As noted above, this includes Federal judges. It does not, however, include House Representatives or Senators.

Why?

Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term "misdemeanor" does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.

In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress "in a loud voice."

How?

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."

The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

The trial of the impeached officer is held in the Senate. In Nixon v. US, regarding the impeachment trial of a Federal judge, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the phrase phrase "sole power to try all impeachments" to a particular case was not justiciable. In other words it held that the proper application of this constitutional language to a specific impeachment proceeding was not a question for the courts. Therefore, the process and procedure for impeachment lie solely within the purview of the legislature. The officer subject to an impeachment proceeding has no appeal to a federal court.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.

From the sidebar:

House Rules Governing Impeachment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/houserules.pdf

Senate Rules Governing Impeachment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials (inactive link)

Trump's Syria airstrikes: constitutional or not?
By Lauren Carroll on Friday, April 7th, 2017 at 5:49 p.m.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/07/trumps-syria-airstrikes-constitutional-or-not/
( Read more... )
Whether it was constitutional for Trump to carry out these airstrikes in Syria without congressional approval is not an easy question to answer — especially because the Trump administration has not yet made public its own legal justification. We asked the Trump administration, and we’ll update this post if we hear back.

The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, but throughout the past 70 years or so, presidents have adopted a flexible view of their own constitutional role as commander-in-chief in order to engage in military action without congressional approval.( Read more... )

War powers evolution

For most of American history, the consensus view among politicians and legal scholars was that the Founding Fathers meant for Congress to have the "sole authority" in deciding to initiate any hostilities or war with another country. ( Read more... )

War Powers Resolution. The resolution required that, in the absence of a war declaration, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and must remove forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise.

As of this writing, Trump is still within the 48-hour window to notify Congress and seek their approval.
( Read more... )

Trump said then that Obama shouldn’t attack Syria, but if he does he needs congressional approval first.

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!" Trump tweeted Aug. 30, 2013.

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A

Alert (TA18-074A)
Russian Government Cyber Activity Targeting Energy and Other Critical Infrastructure Sectors Original release date: March 15, 2018

Systems Affected
Domain Controllers
File Servers
Email Servers

Overview
This joint Technical Alert (TA) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This alert provides information on Russian government actions targeting U.S. Government entities as well as organizations in the energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors. It also contains indicators of compromise (IOCs) and technical details on the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by Russian government cyber actors on compromised victim networks. DHS and FBI produced this alert to educate network defenders to enhance their ability to identify and reduce exposure to malicious activity.

DHS and FBI characterize this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks. After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally, and collected information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems (ICS).

For a downloadable copy of IOC packages and associated files, see: Go to the original link above.

Description
Since at least March 2016, Russian government cyber actors—hereafter referred to as “threat actors”—targeted government entities and multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including the energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors.

Analysis by DHS and FBI, resulted in the identification of distinct indicators and behaviors related to this activity. Of note, the report Dragonfly: Western energy sector targeted by sophisticated attack group, released by Symantec on September 6, 2017, provides additional information about this ongoing campaign. [1] (link is external)

This campaign comprises two distinct categories of victims: staging and intended targets. The initial victims are peripheral organizations such as trusted third-party suppliers with less secure networks, referred to as “staging targets” throughout this alert. The threat actors used the staging targets’ networks as pivot points and malware repositories when targeting their final intended victims. NCCIC and FBI judge the ultimate objective of the actors is to compromise organizational networks, also referred to as the “intended target.”( Read more... )

Might have been photoshopped but I'm not going to check. It's too cute.



Jeff Sessions, for those that aren't USAers and might not know, is currently the 84th Attorney General of the United States.

Reports of a giant glowing ball lighting the sky over Salekhard, the Yamal peninsula
https://twitter.com/siberian_times/status/923869613284212737/photo/1?
ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.space.com%2F38593-glowing-bubble-over-siberia.html


The Siberian Times @siberian_times
Reports of a giant glowing ball lighting the sky over Salekhard, the Yamal peninsula http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/reports-of-spectacular-ufo-signaled-by-a-giant-glowing-ball-lighting-the-sky-in-northern-siberia/ …
6:10 AM - Oct 27, 2017

A massive, glowing bubble of light erupted in the night sky above northeastern Siberia sometime last night (Oct. 26/27), The Siberian Times has reported.

Multiple witnesses reported seeing the bubble, according to the publication, and at least five people captured images of the phenomenon.

While many people quoted by the news site expressed concerns that the phenomenon might have something to do with aliens or "a gap in the space-time continuum," The Siberian Times suspected it was caused by a rocket launch. Now, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (which operates the Russian armed forces) has said on Facebook that it launched a Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile last night as part of a test exercise.

The missile was apparently launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northwestern Russia toward the Kura testing range in Kamchatka, which is on Russia's western, Pacific peninsula, according to The Siberian Times and the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The Siberian Times also reports that the northern lights were expected to be particularly bright last night, which explains why some of the photographers were already watching the sky when the bubble appeared.

You can see more images of the cloud and testimony from witnesses at The Siberian Times website.

Follow Calla Cofield @callacofield. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.




https://twitter.com/siberian_times/status/923869613284212737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.space.com%2F38593-glowing-bubble-over-siberia.html

Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins
By Jennifer Rubin August 30 at 9:35 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?utm_term=.e6ac97728a97

After President Trump’s pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order designed to stop the violation of the constitutional rights of suspected illegal immigrants, conventional wisdom — and certainly the Trump administration — would have us believe that Trump’s pardon powers are unlimited. However, never before has someone stretched the pardon power so beyond its original intent. Trump has now drawn scrutiny not simply from critics of his racist rhetoric but from the court itself.

The Arizona Republic reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.

However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio’s request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn’t grant Arpaio’s request.

In other words, this is no slam dunk.

Meanwhile, Protect Democracy, an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms, and a group of lawyers have sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits. In their letter obtained by Right Turn, they argue:

While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

Those challenging the pardon understand there is no precedent for this — but neither is there a precedent for a pardon of this type. “While many pardons are controversial politically, we are unaware of any past example of a pardon to a public official for criminal contempt of court for violating a court order to stop a systemic practice of violating individuals’ constitutional rights,” Fein says. He posits the example of criminal contempt in the context of desegregation. “In 1962, after the governor and lieutenant governor of Mississippi disobeyed a court order to allow James Meredith to attend the University of Mississippi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the Department of Justice to bring criminal contempt charges, which it then did,” Fein recalls. “Eventually, while the criminal contempt case was pending, the Mississippi officials relented and allowed Meredith (and others) to attend the university. But if the president had pardoned the Mississippi officials from the criminal contempt, it would have sent a clear message to other segregationist officials that court orders could be ignored.”

In other words, if the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, then those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless. It is a creative argument, but then, this president has created new and disturbing challenges to democratic norms.

Lurking in the background is the potential for Trump to pardon associates involved in the probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and the possible obstruction of justice that followed. The Arpaio pardon may well have been an attempt to signal to those officials and ex-officials that they can resist inquiries with the assurance that Trump will pardon them. (Recall Trump’s unprecedented remarks that Michael Flynn should hold out for a grant of immunity.) Using the pardon power to obstruct an investigation into his own possible wrongdoing would signal a constitutional crisis. “It is possible that such an act would be of such corrupt intent and so contrary to our constitutional system that Congress would use it as a grounds to impeach, and/or that the special counsel would see it as a grounds to indict for violations of federal criminal statutes related to obstruction of justice,” Fein explains. Indeed, Congress can decide the president’s conduct is impeachable even in the absence of a finding of criminal wrongdoing. Fein warns, “As for the validity of these pardons, because Trump pardoning associates to shield them and him from scrutiny by the special counsel would be such a corrupt and untested act, his associates would be wise not to rely on such a pardon providing them full protection as, in the end, it might not.”

Other legal experts agree with this line of reasoning. Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, who served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors, argues in The Post today:

As with any other presidential power, the power to pardon is constrained by the ordinary requirements of federal law applicable to all public officials. For example, if representatives of a pardon-seeker arrived in the Oval Office with a bundle of cash that the president accepted in return for a pardon, there is little doubt that the president would be guilty of the crime of bribery. . . . If Trump were to pardon any of the figures in the current Russia investigation, his action would certainly impede or obstruct the due administration of justice, as the courts have broadly construed that standard.

It would not be difficult to imagine Mueller making the case that the motive behind such interference was “corrupt.” As the Founding Fathers made plain, the purpose behind the pardon power is to extend mercy to those who have offended and have demonstrated remorse. Using the pardon power to protect the president’s own interests against embarrassment or exposure is not legitimate. Rather, a crassly self-interested exercise of presidential power to impede the due administration of justice is the very antithesis of the president’s most solemn oath — “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

And this brings us back to Judge Bolton. Bassin notes, “Judge Bolton may want to see how the honorable lawyers of DOJ’s public integrity section respond personally in open court — themselves as officers of the bar who’ve taken an oath to uphold the Constitution — to the blatant abuse of power by their boss.” He adds, “After all, these are people who’ve dedicated their lives and careers to ensuring our public officials act with integrity and Joe Arpaio and now the President of the United States have spit in the face of that.” Bolton’s hearing will venture into uncharted territory, a voyage necessitated by Trump’s utter disregard for the rule of law and his constitutional obligations to enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Feculent - Relating to feces, specifically something smelling like feces or sharing common traits with feces.

Feculence - Full of foul or impure matter; fecal.

Diplo- Double

What a fun way, descriptive and avoiding censorship, of current Presidential political speech.

*laughing* but better than I thought because my first thought was that diplo had to do with something done with the tongue, lingus, which was prurient.

Aaaaaaand now in the middle of the show that carried this word ALL of my cable channels are no longer working.
If I were paranoid....


One side has the word, one side has the definition. Microwave and dishwasher safe. Lotsa space for your liquids.

*laughing* My coffee is better than that.
Just in case I want to buy this.... https://urbandictionary.store/products/mug?defid=529344