here’s one: https://vimeo.com/378669826 (I’ll update the other post too)
was semi-annoying to find because the original NBC archive doesn’t load anymore, and ofc its not on Youtube. But if people ask for it, I gotta try harder, since I brought it up.
No, that’s Fran Drescher. Wrong sitcom. (also apparently another decent person IRL. Though she has more controversies being the lead of SAG-AFTRA).
He’s been a shit head for so long that 90’s films called it out. I’m sure I can find SNL skits older than I am taking the piss out of him.
… yup. 1988.
It was asking for his opinion on Jon Ossoff’s statements he made last week. Which should honestly be a softball question for a politician. But ofc we continue to see how fragile that ego is
stop replying to me to argue about things I didn’t say?
you’re not who I originally responded to and you came in later in the chain. I made one reply on a public forum and you’re already all “stop talking to me”?
Come on, man.
The DOJ is not an independent branch though. It’s part of the executive branch.
Structurally, no. In spirit it is. That’s why 75% of the DOJ left over 2025, because they do not want to deal with the eventual fallout of how Trump is managing this DOJ. It’s not a case they are confident they will get out of cleanly (with their license to practice law).
To me this is one of the biggest flaws of the constitution
Yes, the constitution was kept small on purpose and a lot was left to the honor system. Under the logic that a truly tyrannous leadership could tear it down no matter how many loopholes it tries to close. Was that the right call? I can’t really say.
These can be interpreted as contradictory statements.
Sure, if you never worked at a large structure. They are professionals who talk. They are not intimate nor buddy-buddy with each other.
And they’re the same branch. That’s the point.
The same way Congress has various agencies it delegates powers to, yes. You are very technically correct.
Like those agencies, the DOJ is a non-partisan part of the otherwise partisan executive branch whose job is to represent the US in its court cases. It is not the president’s personal law firm.
but I was speaking to the specific statement.
I’m speaking generally. Becsuse this specific situation is so sleazy and utterly corrupt that it’s barely even worth analysis. But for those who don’t know: no, this is not normal, business as usual.
. I would expect if a President had a legitimate concern that they would voice that concern to the AG to investigate
Yes. The branches communicate with each other, but ultimately work independently except for very specific sync points. Or if one branch needs to check and balance another.
That is very different from meeting up with an AG for a private meeting. Let alone the conflict of Interest of being the president’s personal lawyer. This isn’t normal.
promising not to ever do it would just get them in hot water later down the road.
Yes, I’m sure it will for Todd. Much later than I wish, but later down the road indeed.
Bro. The kids are alright. Not pristine perfect beings who will being about a new era of prosperity.
Besides, why you putting it on “the kids discovered vaping”? That sounds like something a billionaire would say to deflect from the huge lobbying campaign they made to distinguish vapes from cigarettes.
with about as much irrational hate as the people they despise, like Trump.
Thanks for outing yourself. Makes it easy to just skip the conversation and not bother trying to open up a conversation made in bad faith.
I don’t think this is an argument. OP has a personal vendetta with a high pfofile figure and telling him to “calm down we need him” doesn’t remove that betrayal. He wasn’t even disagreeing with the reply. Just asserting what we all already know in that Jeffries does not have the people’s priorities in mind.
Him not being as bad as a literal nazi isn’t a high bar to meet.
For those who do not know history; it was once a huge scandal for Clinton to be seen talking with the AG. 16 years after he was president. Those so concerned about “her emails” would know this well.
And that’s not even going into “Nannygate” if you want a small rabbit hole to go down. A very tame controversy that would be cast off as a “nothing burger” today as I’m sure Trump’s cabinet have had controversies every other day at this point.
This is all to say that: no, this is not normal. It is not normal for the DoJ to be so closely affiliated with the executive branch. And watch the hypocrisy when the US magically rememberes this after Trump leaves.
You don’t see the contradiction in those two concepts?
No, not really.
I was hoping you’d take a look and figure it out but let me explain, and hope you get it.
Why would I when you didn’t give me the same grace? from what I said upstream
I just want to make sure we make distinctions between general ideas and why we actually hate the concept in the modern day.
Well here we are arguing definitions and ideas and not the reasons within these modern ads are oppressive. Not talking about the algorithmic nature of mass surveillance and privacy breaches needed to power modern ads, but “no this ad is different” surface level thinking. But if you want to talk about it, so be it.
‘Telling someone to come to your house’ specifies someONE to whom you are directing the invitation
Okay. make it a group you’re at. Throw a flyer on a telephone pole. Same deal. We had ads before the interet.
You are trying to combine two contradictory levels of specificity.
I don’t think the levels change the intent and definition of an ad. You want to tell people about a thing, you use something to tell them thing.
More than you think. I believe the DOJ lost 70% of lawyers in 2025 alone:
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/19/g-s1-66906/trump-civil-rights-justice-exodus
I heard later stories report 75%.
Now, anyone they hired into the circus to try and replace them surely lacked integrity as a prerequisite.
No chance they do it now. They’ll do it when Trump is likely already dead, if (and only if) a proper democrat and congress comes into power, and when the sentiment tides signifigantly shift. To the point where that MAGA neighbor suddenly pretends he never voted for Trump (he voted for him 3 times. maybe 4).
Then they will probably get 1-2 lawyers on the hook, take their license, and give them a consultant role elsewhere in government as an olive branch. Justice. I sure hope to be proven wrong, but something tells me we won’t learn from Reconstruction.
Odd because these files are well before Trump’s presidency, let alone when that immunity clause was ruled.
Probably intentional
An ad is an ad. It being a bad idea doesn’t change that fact 🤷
describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.
Meets the definition. I just want to make sure we make distinctions between general ideas and why we actually hate the concept in the modern day.
We’re in a post truth society. So I question how impactful it really is these days even with video evidence. This has been fought for decades and taught in at least 2 generations of school by now, but progress is still slow.
I think that’s what they mean above. They are past the phase where they bother trying to hide it. But I’d love to be proven wrong.