Junior and Eric 3: TweedleTrumps Begging For Daddy's Attention

[Cartmann99]

 

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

21 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

Eric, the grownups are talking. Go eat your Apocalypse pudding. 

[Cartmann99]

 

[fraurosena]

8 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

Feeling the hot breath in his neck of the law catching up to him is getting pretty uncomfortable...

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

16 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

“Truthfully, we haven’t” says the guy who stole from a childrens’ cancer charity fund. It would be more believable that I can easily slide into the Guess jeans I wore when I was 16. 

[Cartmann99]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No surprise, Failson1 and Vanky are refusing to cooperate:

 

[church_of_dog]

I know this isn't the memes thread, but:

[Shrubbery]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

No surprise, Failson1 and Vanky are refusing to cooperate:

 

Is it possible under US law to have them brought in to testify by the police (or any other law enforcement agency, I’m not picky), preferably in handcuffs?

Because I’d really, really like to see that. I feel it’d give a positive vibe to the start of the year.

[Cartmann99]

Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle Reportedly Engaged — For A Year

Quote

Wanna-be political power couple Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle are reportedly engaged — and have been for over a year, a source close to both confirmed to The New York Post’s Page Six.

One-time Fox News host Guilfoyle sported a large diamond ring in an Instagram post Saturday posing with her beau as they celebrated his 44th birthday at Mar-a-Lago.

“Tonight was extra special celebrating @donaldjtrumpjr’s birthday,” wrote Guilfoyle, 52. “Don, you are strong, smart, courageous, funny and the love of my life. I can’t wait to spend the rest of our lives together. Love you. 💋😍🎂♥️.”

Junior popped the question on his birthday last New Year’s Eve, The Daily Mail reported Monday, citing anonymous sources.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

13 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle Reportedly Engaged — For A Year

 

They deserve each other. The remainder of single Americans are giving a huge sigh of relief that these two grifter jerks are no longer on the market.

[GreyhoundFan]

[JMarie]

23 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle Reportedly Engaged — For A Year

 

Engaged for a year and just getting a ring now? Seems pretty cheap to me.

[GreyhoundFan]

[Shrubbery]

Is it cynical to think of the rule that a married couple can’t be made to testify against each other? Is that even on the books in the US?

If it is, what is the tax-evasion-cum-high-treason equivalent of a shotgun wedding?

[GreyhoundFan]

20 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

Is it cynical to think of the rule that a married couple can’t be made to testify against each other? Is that even on the books in the US?

The answer is:  It depends.

 

Quote

Spousal testimonial privilege

This type of spousal privilege has been recognized throughout history and pre-dates our Constitution and even our country. It arises from the notion that married spouses are one entity and so are not competent to testify against themselves through their other (if not better) half. Under this type of spousal privilege, one spouse cannot be compelled to give testimony against his or her spouse who is a defendant in a criminal trial or the subject of a grand jury proceeding. The accused spouse may claim the privilege or the other spouse may claim it on behalf of the accused spouse. The spouses must be married at the time that the privilege is asserted; so an ex-spouse can be compelled to give testimony about a defendant to whom he or she was previously, but is no longer, married.

Exceptions to the spousal testimonial privilege exist where a spouse:

• is charged with a crime against the other spouse
• is charged with a crime against a child of either spouse
• is charged with a crime against a third party in the course of committing a crime against the other spouse
• is asked to testify about matters pre-dating the marriage, or
• is charged with human trafficking for immoral purposes (such as prostitution)

In each of these situations, even current spouses may be compelled to testify against an accused spouse in a criminal trial or grand jury proceeding.

 

[Shrubbery]

Thank you for the explanation - going by the boldened, it wouldn’t apply here, if I understand correctly?

Of course, Junior would have to understand it correctly too …

[fraurosena]

35 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

Thank you for the explanation - going by the boldened, it wouldn’t apply here, if I understand correctly?

Of course, Junior would have to understand it correctly too …

It actually does apply: They are not married yet. She could be asked to testify against him right now without problem. And if they were to marry tomorrow? Well, anything that she would be asked to testify about would by definition have happened before the marriage.

I agree that Tweedle-dumb probably doesn't understand this distinction.

[Shrubbery]

4 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

It actually does apply: They are not married yet. She could be asked to testify against him right now without problem. And if they were to marry tomorrow? Well, anything that she would be asked to testify about would by definition have happened before the marriage.

I agree that Tweedle-dumb probably doesn't understand this distinction.

That is actually what I meant to say, perhaps badly phrased - but regardless of that, nice that we here always can fall back on agreeing about Junior’s lack of understanding even when otherwise we have to agree to disagree 😉

[Audrey2]

I'm not sure that an entirely matters. I think if she were asked to testify against him she would have the most horrendous case of amnesia. Do you know Donald Trump jr? I cannot remember. Are you engaged to him? I cannot remember.

[thoughtful]

2 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

I'm not sure that an entirely matters. I think if she were asked to testify against him she would have the most horrendous case of amnesia. Do you know Donald Trump jr? I cannot remember. Are you engaged to him? I cannot remember.

THE BEST  . . . IS YET . . . TO . . .  I can't remember.

[JMarie]

On 1/5/2022 at 3:11 PM, Shrubbery said:

Thank you for the explanation - going by the boldened, it wouldn’t apply here, if I understand correctly?

Of course, Junior would have to understand it correctly too …

Giuliani's a lawyer. He can explain it to Junior.

[Cartmann99]

 

[onekidanddone]

20 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

Well Eric, do enlighten us with your bigly understanding of the Constitution. We can wait.

[GreyhoundFan]

12 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Well Eric, do enlighten us with your bigly understanding of the Constitution. We can wait.

This is what we'll all look like because Failson2 will be stymied by the second line of the preamble.