550 Comments
тна Return to thread

Listening to the hearing was so bizarre.

Finally, one of the judges referenced the oath the President takes -- "I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law." Talk about stating the obvious

Expand full comment

Yeah, that was Judge Henderson. She basically got Sauer to admit that she was right, too.

Expand full comment

She is the elder of that court. Seventy-nine years old and was first appointed by Reagan, the H.W. Bush put her on the DC Appellate Court. She kicked ass with that statement.

Expand full comment

She did in fact. Coincidentally, there was a U.S. bankruptcy judge in South Carolina named Karen Henderson at the same time this Karen Henderson was a U.S. District Court judge in South Carolina. I sat in the bankruptcy judge's court a couple of times while covering the bankruptcy of the PTL television ministry in the late 1980s.

Expand full comment

Oh myyy...that had to be very interesting!

Expand full comment

The criminal trial was more interesting. The government did a really good job of showing how deep was Jim Bakker's intention of taking as much money as he could for himself, even as the ministry was going bankrupt. (It would have had to file bankruptcy in 1987 even if Bakker's affair hadn't been discovered and he hadn't resigned.) The bankruptcy case was just sad. I think the people whose money the Bakkers stole ended up getting maybe 7 cents on the dollar. I felt so badly for them.

Expand full comment

Any decision that helps Trump in any way is helping the destruction of our ideals and the rule of law. We could become a nation run by warring oligarchs.

Expand full comment

Nasty, brutish and trumped.

Expand full comment

Which is to say "f***ed.

Expand full comment

Lan-weтАЩre already a nation being run by warring oligarchsтАж

Expand full comment

True, Citizen60, but it bears repeating ad nauseam .

Expand full comment