Georgia Senate Runoff.

12346

Comments

  • Oh, I'm with you on the need to set a precedent. In fact I'd go further and say that IMO it is extremely dangerous to let Trump just walk away from the chaos he's caused without sanction.

  • In the time left Pence can do very little damage.

    Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.

    Pence is a different variety of nutter, more in the General Ripper mould. He could very well decide to nuke Jerusalem to make Jesus return.

  • In the time left Pence can do very little damage.

    Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.

    Pence is a different variety of nutter, more in the General Ripper mould. He could very well decide to nuke Jerusalem to make Jesus return.

    :blush:

    Ok, fair point... I'm off outside to turn around 3 times and spit...

  • In the time left Pence can do very little damage.

    Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.

    Pence is a different variety of nutter, more in the General Ripper mould. He could very well decide to nuke Jerusalem to make Jesus return.

    :blush:

    Ok, fair point... I'm off outside to turn around 3 times and spit...

    And curse!

  • In the time left Pence can do very little damage.

    Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.

    Pence is a different variety of nutter, more in the General Ripper mould. He could very well decide to nuke Jerusalem to make Jesus return.

    :blush:

    Ok, fair point... I'm off outside to turn around 3 times and spit...

    And curse!

    Damn it!

    Now I gotta do it all again!
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    No, complete news for me to hear that. Did they do any damage?

    Where have you been?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump is a political genius. A neo-fascist political genius who has made the alt and far right acceptable and polarized American politics more than at any time since the Civil War. Over the same issues. I fail to see anything clinical at all about his psychology. There is no evidence that he is a narcissist in his own front room. His legacy is assured way beyond the personal.

    Oh please. If you think he's a genius you've drunk the Kool-Aid**. The man has certainly tapped into the right-wing political zeitgeist, but that's not the result of genius, that's the result of him semi-accidentally aligning with it in much the same way that a clock is right twice a day, and being supplied with a script at the crucial time.

    And existing in an age where you can spout whatever you want directly to 'your' people without those annoying gatekeepers like journalists.

    There's ample evidence that Trump is a mouthpiece of Fox News, not the other way around. Time and again the stuff that Trump tweets is stuff he's seen on Fox, sitting in that front room of his while chomping on burgers. He's not the genius, he's the stooge that's put up as a front.

    As to your claim there's no evidence of being a narcissist in private, there is plenty. Where have you been for the last several years as the anecdotes emerge of what he says and how he behaves behind closed doors? For heaven's sake, I'll never forget Daniel Radcliffe talking about meeting Trump after the first Harry Potter film because they were both going on the same breakfast talk show. Trump thought that the exciting thing that Radcliffe should talk about on the show was meeting Trump.

    **Noting they didn't actually drink Kool-Aid, but that's the expression.

    Er, Fox know what he'll say. They are the Machiavellian genii, the Beast, but he is the real deal, he is the Beast's Prophet. Crazy like a fox.

    And the truly lovely drone king Obama wouldn't have said, with all ironic irony 'Hey, and you got to meet the President of the USA!'?

    The incident I referred to was not when Trump was President.

    Yeah, got that the day before.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Why are interim results made public in US elections at all? It makes no sense but unhelpfully fuels speculation in news media and social media plus claims of winning from supporters of those *currently* in the lead but does not serve democracy in any way thay I can see.

    Because people want to know the outcome before they go to bed. Official election results take days.

    Responsible media outlets make a judgement of when to declare a winner - when the result is beyond all reasonable doubt but before every single vote has been counted, which seems fair. Their reputations can suffer if they declare it too soon and turn out to be wrong.

    People wanting to know a 'final' result for personal convenience must not be allowed to force out a partial result which may mislead people and possibly cause trouble.

    Now you're losing me. Media outlets calling results once they were sure of the result is exactly what happened. So what interim results are you complaining about?

    The only reason there was speculation otherwise is because of people, including Trump himself, who are either evil or too stupid to understand the commentary that media organisations were giving about both which way things were leaning and their confidence in that.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump is a political genius. A neo-fascist political genius who has made the alt and far right acceptable and polarized American politics more than at any time since the Civil War. Over the same issues. I fail to see anything clinical at all about his psychology. There is no evidence that he is a narcissist in his own front room. His legacy is assured way beyond the personal.

    Oh please. If you think he's a genius you've drunk the Kool-Aid**. The man has certainly tapped into the right-wing political zeitgeist, but that's not the result of genius, that's the result of him semi-accidentally aligning with it in much the same way that a clock is right twice a day, and being supplied with a script at the crucial time.

    And existing in an age where you can spout whatever you want directly to 'your' people without those annoying gatekeepers like journalists.

    There's ample evidence that Trump is a mouthpiece of Fox News, not the other way around. Time and again the stuff that Trump tweets is stuff he's seen on Fox, sitting in that front room of his while chomping on burgers. He's not the genius, he's the stooge that's put up as a front.

    As to your claim there's no evidence of being a narcissist in private, there is plenty. Where have you been for the last several years as the anecdotes emerge of what he says and how he behaves behind closed doors? For heaven's sake, I'll never forget Daniel Radcliffe talking about meeting Trump after the first Harry Potter film because they were both going on the same breakfast talk show. Trump thought that the exciting thing that Radcliffe should talk about on the show was meeting Trump.

    **Noting they didn't actually drink Kool-Aid, but that's the expression.

    Er, Fox know what he'll say. They are the Machiavellian genii, the Beast, but he is the real deal, he is the Beast's Prophet. Crazy like a fox.

    And the truly lovely drone king Obama wouldn't have said, with all ironic irony 'Hey, and you got to meet the President of the USA!'?

    The incident I referred to was not when Trump was President.

    Yeah, got that the day before.

    I'm aware. I also don't shy away from responding to posts that were actually replying to me, even if other people have made similar points. Nor is there some rule that people can't say similar things. You might have got that, but it took quite a number of posters didn't it? Room for one more.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor

    In the time left Pence can do very little damage.

    Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.

    Pence is a different variety of nutter, more in the General Ripper mould. He could very well decide to nuke Jerusalem to make Jesus return.

    :blush:

    Ok, fair point... I'm off outside to turn around 3 times and spit...

    And curse!

    Damn it!

    Now I gotta do it all again!

    No spitting, please. We're in a pandemic.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate

    In the time left Pence can do very little damage.

    Do not tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.

    Pence is a different variety of nutter, more in the General Ripper mould. He could very well decide to nuke Jerusalem to make Jesus return.

    :blush:

    Ok, fair point... I'm off outside to turn around 3 times and spit...

    And curse!

    Damn it!

    Now I gotta do it all again!

    No spitting, please. We're in a pandemic.

    You've been duped by the lamestream media. The so-called pandemic was a libtard plot to defeat the greatest POTUS of all time. As we all know, now that the election has been stolen, the "pandemic" will magically disappear.
  • I thought it had disappeared after Ken Copeland cursed it, back in March 2020?
    :open_mouth:
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Getting back to the serious subject again for a moment, here's the problem I see with replacing Trump with Pence: Pence will then be able to issue a pardon, won't he?

    I want them both impeached and Nancy Pelosi in charge.
  • Point taken, but would Pence actually have time to achieve anything?

    I wonder if TPTB are stalling, or working around Trump, so as to pass the few days that remain without him being able to do anything (else)completely insane - like nuking Iran...
    :fearful:
  • Getting back to the serious subject again for a moment, here's the problem I see with replacing Trump with Pence: Pence will then be able to issue a pardon, won't he?

    I want them both impeached and Nancy Pelosi in charge.

    Well, Trump has been exploring the self-pardoning option for a while now, allowing him to serve out his term - no Nixon/Ford redux. While I do see a road to impeaching Trump a second time, and possibly even getting a conviction, Pence would be a very tall order, and by that time Biden would be President.

  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Getting back to the serious subject again for a moment, here's the problem I see with replacing Trump with Pence: Pence will then be able to issue a pardon, won't he?

    I want them both impeached and Nancy Pelosi in charge.

    Well, Trump has been exploring the self-pardoning option for a while now, allowing him to serve out his term - no Nixon/Ford redux. While I do see a road to impeaching Trump a second time, and possibly even getting a conviction, Pence would be a very tall order, and by that time Biden would be President.

    Ah, there's the rub. I seriously doubt that enough Republican Senators would vote for conviction to actually remove Trump. The net effect of that failure may well be to reinflate the blowhard. Unlike a normal human being, he is not tempered by public shaming -- anything less than crushing defeat will feed the troll. Or so ISTM.
  • The latest I'm hearing is that Pence has no intention of pardoning Trump.

    AFZ
  • CallanCallan Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    Getting back to the serious subject again for a moment, here's the problem I see with replacing Trump with Pence: Pence will then be able to issue a pardon, won't he?

    I want them both impeached and Nancy Pelosi in charge.

    Well, Trump has been exploring the self-pardoning option for a while now, allowing him to serve out his term - no Nixon/Ford redux. While I do see a road to impeaching Trump a second time, and possibly even getting a conviction, Pence would be a very tall order, and by that time Biden would be President.

    Ah, there's the rub. I seriously doubt that enough Republican Senators would vote for conviction to actually remove Trump. The net effect of that failure may well be to reinflate the blowhard. Unlike a normal human being, he is not tempered by public shaming -- anything less than crushing defeat will feed the troll. Or so ISTM.

    A Republican Senator who voted to impeach Trump would probably end up being challenged by MAGAist loons in the next primary. A lot of them have probably blotted their copybook by certifying the election result. To tell the truth once may be considered a misfortune, a second time would look like carelessness.

  • kingsfoldkingsfold Shipmate
    Getting back to the serious subject again for a moment, here's the problem I see with replacing Trump with Pence: Pence will then be able to issue a pardon, won't he?

    I want them both impeached and Nancy Pelosi in charge.

    Well, Trump has been exploring the self-pardoning option for a while now, allowing him to serve out his term - no Nixon/Ford redux. While I do see a road to impeaching Trump a second time, and possibly even getting a conviction, Pence would be a very tall order, and by that time Biden would be President.

    Am I missing something obvious here, but how can you be pardoned unless you have been convicted?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I think if T would try to self pardon it would not have much impact. The new AG will investigate him, prosecute him, and try him in court. T will no doubt challenge the outcome because he has a pardon. It will go to the Supreme Court but I think they would hold up the conviction.

    Still, he is not immune from violations of state and local laws. DC is in the unique position of straddling two states. Both states will have the option of trying him for whatever crimes happened in their respective states. So if he incited to riot on the Maryland side, Maryland will have a crack at him; and if the riot happened on the Virginia side, look out, daddy
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 8
    kingsfold wrote: »
    Am I missing something obvious here, but how can you be pardoned unless you have been convicted?

    Nixon was never convicted of anything. Nor was Caspar Weinberger. The only limits on the presidential pardon power is that he can only pardon:
    1. Federal crimes, so a pardon is no shield against state laws or civil lawsuits
    2. Past actions. Pardoning someone in advance for something they're going to do is criminal conspiracy.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Still, he is not immune from violations of state and local laws. DC is in the unique position of straddling two states. Both states will have the option of trying him for whatever crimes happened in their respective states. So if he incited to riot on the Maryland side, Maryland will have a crack at him; and if the riot happened on the Virginia side, look out, daddy

    The District of Columbia is not part of any state. It's essentially a federal fiefdom with limited local government. Neither Maryland nor Virginia has any jurisdiction over DC and things that happen there.
  • kingsfold wrote: »

    Am I missing something obvious here, but how can you be pardoned unless you have been convicted?

    *cough* Nixon *cough*
  • kingsfoldkingsfold Shipmate
    kingsfold wrote: »

    Am I missing something obvious here, but how can you be pardoned unless you have been convicted?

    *cough* Nixon *cough*

    Am UK-based, and I've heard of Watergate, but that's as far as my knowledge extends. Hence probably missing the obvious and therefore the question. Plus I was talking with a French (ie about as clued up on the US as me :blush:) colleague earlier, who maintained you couldn't be pardoned if not convicted etc.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I would suppose that in so far as there is any thinking behind it it is that people don't want ingenious prosecutors thinking up charges charges that aren't covered by the pardon.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    kingsfold wrote: »
    Am I missing something obvious here, but how can you be pardoned unless you have been convicted?

    The pardon can be for crimes allegedly committed but not yet charged. That was the essence of Ford's pardon of Nixon.

    The pardon cannot, however, be for crimes not yet committed.
  • Rather akin to the Scottish verdict *Not Proven*?

    I'm told that that verdict means *Not Guilty - but don't do it again!*, so I now await correction from Scottish Shipmates.
  • It will come to me, or to Croesus more quickly in all likelihood, but early in the 20thC there was a debate about accepting a pardon for a crime as yet uncharged was an admission of guilt. Something to that effect. Sound familiar?
  • kingsfoldkingsfold Shipmate
    Rather akin to the Scottish verdict *Not Proven*?

    I'm told that that verdict means *Not Guilty - but don't do it again!*, so I now await correction from Scottish Shipmates.

    I'm only Scottish by residency (well, it would make me eligible for a Scottish passport, were such a thing to be), but I would have said "Not Proven" means "We think you dunnit, but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt so we're not allowed to find you guilty. But we really don't believe you're not guilty."

    In practice that may amount to something similar. But somehow there are differences in the harmonics to my ears.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Still, he is not immune from violations of state and local laws. DC is in the unique position of straddling two states. Both states will have the option of trying him for whatever crimes happened in their respective states. So if he incited to riot on the Maryland side, Maryland will have a crack at him; and if the riot happened on the Virginia side, look out, daddy

    The District of Columbia is not part of any state. It's essentially a federal fiefdom with limited local government. Neither Maryland nor Virginia has any jurisdiction over DC and things that happen there.

    He can't pardon himself for illegal business dealings and tax fraud committed in the state of New York. Or Florida, for that matter, but I'm not aware of any investigations going on there, while there are two in NY, one criminal, one civil. If he ultimately goes to jail via the Al Capone road, there would be a certain fittingness to it.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 8
    kingsfold wrote: »
    I would have said "Not Proven" means "We think you dunnit, but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt so we're not allowed to find you guilty. But we really don't believe you're not guilty."

    Yes, that's more or less how I think it's used. I believe I'm correct in saying that "not proven" and "not guilty" are equivalent in legal terms.

    Rape Crisis Scotland has a campaign to end "Not Proven", viewing it as a way for juries to let rapists get away with it, because it's somehow "easy" for a jury to say "you did it, but we're not going to punish you" in cases where they think the victim's behaviour was partially to blame.
  • Just as pleading "no contest" means "We all know I did it but I'm not going to admit it or demand my day in court."
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    No, complete news for me to hear that. Did they do any damage?

    Where have you been?

    Irony, Martin, irony.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    No, complete news for me to hear that. Did they do any damage?

    Smashed windows. Stolen goods. Four people died. Other than that, yes.

    The Republic desecrated ...
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think if T would try to self pardon it would not have much impact. The new AG will investigate him, prosecute him, and try him in court. T will no doubt challenge the outcome because he has a pardon. It will go to the Supreme Court but I think they would hold up the conviction.

    Still, he is not immune from violations of state and local laws. DC is in the unique position of straddling two states. Both states will have the option of trying him for whatever crimes happened in their respective states. So if he incited to riot on the Maryland side, Maryland will have a crack at him; and if the riot happened on the Virginia side, look out, daddy

    The Maryland FBI has published a lot of the wanted photos though.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    He can't pardon himself for illegal business dealings and tax fraud committed in the state of New York. Or Florida, for that matter, but I'm not aware of any investigations going on there, while there are two in NY, one criminal, one civil. If he ultimately goes to jail via the Al Capone road, there would be a certain fittingness to it.

    And to take that a step further, a pardon cannot free him from a civil suit wherever that may be brought, or whether the action be in a State or Federal court.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Just as pleading "no contest" means "We all know I did it but I'm not going to admit it or demand my day in court."

    Similar, although I gather "no contest" pleas aren't quite the same as "guilty" as regards things like future civil action over the case. My understanding is that "not proven" and "not guilty" are functionally identical, even though they carry a rather different colour.
  • It is a convention in US law that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

    Hence if Trump does pardon himself, I am sure there will be some accompanying spin about a "corrupt system that's persecuting him" because he cannot admit fault. About anything.

    I have heard legal experts who I respect argue that they think a self-pardon would stick whilst others think it would not. If Trump does pardon himself then a Supreme Court ruling becomes a likely destination.

    The text of the constitution makes the pardon power very broad: "except in cases of impeachment." is essentially the only limitation in the text. I suspect that a certain amount of common law (case law) that infuses the US legal system and goes back to Magna Carta (at least) would actually prevent a self-pardon from standing up to a challenge as it is a settled principle that no man can be his own judge. However, who knows how this Supreme Court might rule.

    The legal mechanism would be for Trump to be charged. His lawyers then present the pardon to the court and demand the case be dismissed on the basis that any acts in the charge would be covered by said pardon. Whichever way the court ruled on that it would be appealed and re-appealed to the Supreme Court.

    I really don't know if I expect that or not, but it's certainly a possibility...

    AFZ

  • It is a convention in US law that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

    Hence if Trump does pardon himself, I am sure there will be some accompanying spin about a "corrupt system that's persecuting him" because he cannot admit fault. About anything.

    I have heard legal experts who I respect argue that they think a self-pardon would stick whilst others think it would not. If Trump does pardon himself then a Supreme Court ruling becomes a likely destination.

    The text of the constitution makes the pardon power very broad: "except in cases of impeachment." is essentially the only limitation in the text. I suspect that a certain amount of common law (case law) that infuses the US legal system and goes back to Magna Carta (at least) would actually prevent a self-pardon from standing up to a challenge as it is a settled principle that no man can be his own judge. However, who knows how this Supreme Court might rule.

    The legal mechanism would be for Trump to be charged. His lawyers then present the pardon to the court and demand the case be dismissed on the basis that any acts in the charge would be covered by said pardon. Whichever way the court ruled on that it would be appealed and re-appealed to the Supreme Court.

    I really don't know if I expect that or not, but it's certainly a possibility...

    AFZ

    SCOTUS (1915), Burdick vs. United States ...

    "to grant a pardon carries the imputation of guilt; to accept a pardon is a confession ..."

    So if The Emperor does "pardon himself," he then loses all Fifth Amendment privilege in the matters ...
    He could be compelled to testify truthfully and completely about the matters, under penalty of perjury and/or obstruction of justice ...

    President Weasel is more and more boxing himself in (and he is too stupid to know it ...) ...
  • Getting back to the serious subject again for a moment, here's the problem I see with replacing Trump with Pence: Pence will then be able to issue a pardon, won't he?

    I want them both impeached and Nancy Pelosi in charge.

    Do you think he would, now that he's seen Trump deliberately target him and his family for death? It wasn't subtle, the blame and then the plans people made as a result.
  • If I were T (shudder) I would pardon myself today and get the hell out of Dodge. Things are not going to improve for him, will they? And may well dis-improve. Just resign and hope that the federal powers-that-be decide it's not worth pursuing. Though I do think the self-pardon would be a red flag to a bull, and might get him dragged back where a simple "I resign" and flight might not.

    But then, this is Trump. He isn't going to shut up, it's not in him to do so. So they might as well throw the book at him, because if they don't, they will have him screaming from the sidelines and instigating insurrection for the rest of his life.
  • If I were T (shudder) I would pardon myself today and get the hell out of Dodge. Things are not going to improve for him, will they? And may well dis-improve. Just resign and hope that the federal powers-that-be decide it's not worth pursuing. Though I do think the self-pardon would be a red flag to a bull, and might get him dragged back where a simple "I resign" and flight might not.

    But then, this is Trump. He isn't going to shut up, it's not in him to do so. So they might as well throw the book at him, because if they don't, they will have him screaming from the sidelines and instigating insurrection for the rest of his life.

    I think he likely will graciously pardon himself ...
    But, being exceedingly both stupid and ignorant, he won't understand that doing so will put him firmly on OTHER legal hooks ... see: SCOTUS (1915), Burdick vs. United States
  • It is a convention in US law that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

    Hence if Trump does pardon himself, I am sure there will be some accompanying spin about a "corrupt system that's persecuting him" because he cannot admit fault. About anything.

    I have heard legal experts who I respect argue that they think a self-pardon would stick whilst others think it would not. If Trump does pardon himself then a Supreme Court ruling becomes a likely destination.

    The text of the constitution makes the pardon power very broad: "except in cases of impeachment." is essentially the only limitation in the text. I suspect that a certain amount of common law (case law) that infuses the US legal system and goes back to Magna Carta (at least) would actually prevent a self-pardon from standing up to a challenge as it is a settled principle that no man can be his own judge. However, who knows how this Supreme Court might rule.

    The legal mechanism would be for Trump to be charged. His lawyers then present the pardon to the court and demand the case be dismissed on the basis that any acts in the charge would be covered by said pardon. Whichever way the court ruled on that it would be appealed and re-appealed to the Supreme Court.

    I really don't know if I expect that or not, but it's certainly a possibility...

    AFZ

    SCOTUS (1915), Burdick vs. United States ...

    "to grant a pardon carries the imputation of guilt; to accept a pardon is a confession ..."

    So if The Emperor does "pardon himself," he then loses all Fifth Amendment privilege in the matters ...
    He could be compelled to testify truthfully and completely about the matters, under penalty of perjury and/or obstruction of justice ...

    President Weasel is more and more boxing himself in (and he is too stupid to know it ...) ...

    Thanks for that. I couldn't quite remember the relevant case and was too lazy to go look.

    In terms of the 5th Ammendment, I'm not sure it's that good as he would remain in legal jeapody for state charges.

    AFZ
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited January 9
    I would rather enjoy lhe legal fight, once the danger of new violence and insurrection recedes.
  • When do the new senators from Georgia get sworn in?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I would rather enjoy lhe legal fight, once the danger of new violence and insurrection recedes.

    Oh, I dunno. Having read some transcripts of what happens when attorneys question You-Know-Who under oath in other legal proceedings, I suspect the results will be more frustrating and confusing than enlightening.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    When do the new senators from Georgia get sworn in?

    On another thread, someone told me that they'd been sworn in already.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 9
    That someone was not correct.

    The deadline for counties to certify their results is 15 January, so it can't happen earlier unless every county in the state decides to get a hurry-on.

    The deadline for certifying the overall results after that is 22 January.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    When do the new senators from Georgia get sworn in?

    On another thread, someone told me that they'd been sworn in already.

    If you're talking about me, I said the new congress had already been sworn in, not the two gentlemen from Georgia.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    When do the new senators from Georgia get sworn in?

    Relatedly when do the old ones (Kelly) lose their passes.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    When do the new senators from Georgia get sworn in?

    On another thread, someone told me that they'd been sworn in already.

    If you're talking about me, I said the new congress had already been sworn in, not the two gentlemen from Georgia.

    If it were you (and I can't remember, nor can I remember the thread) the response I received very much gave the message.
Sign In or Register to comment.