Hey @AriFleischer. Manafort was prosecuted because he worked for Trump. @AWeissmann_ went after Trump people until he found crimes or arm-twisted them into pleading on process crimes such as maybe lying about legal things. Every Mueller victim deserves a pardon!
Paul Manafort is the last person who should get a pardon. He cheated on his taxes. He does not deserve a pardon. (Not do GOP members of Congress who broke the law.).
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) December 24, 2020
More from Trump
Unless Trump's new lawyer is going to argue Hilary Clinton went to court and lost 60 times and then launched an attack on the Capitol, these clips of Democrats objecting to vote counting and being overruled by VP Biden are a waste of time.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 12, 2021
Also this is such a small thing but one thing I noticed in that Trump campaign ad the defense just ran, there were no citations, unlike every clip that the impeachment managers showed
Michael Van Der Veen is giving us the full Fox News Primetime Defense.
PROCESS ARGUMENT.
DRINK.
Lol my guy this is the chance to rebut the evidence that they’ve presented against Trump.
You know … Lindsey … I want you to think about something
F$&kin\u2019 dare yah, dare yah (dammit, already thought of one) to find a time in history when the following has been more true. \u201cNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.\u201d - Margaret Mead
— Moondeer (@kelleydawg) February 15, 2021
Now if a small group can change the country, what do you want to f$&kin’ bet that ONE MF can change this country?
Oh thank Christ! I was worried you might go the other way and that would totally f$&k up everything I had left to say.
‘Cause Lindsey, I have learned something this week. We are all familiar with the phrase:
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?