Jump to content

Sam Asghari saw The US Congress' open letter to Britney


Recommended Posts

I like that Congress is aware of the situation but I really feel Britney needs to focus on California court. That alone is a massive step for her and she hasn’t spoken once prior to that. I feel like Matt is using this opportunity to win brownie points with the public. He’s not a good guy and if she does get involved, I won’t be surprised if the press starts to poke fun at Britney and Matt working together. 

Link to comment
  • Super Mods
Just now, K3yN said:

Thanks for the detailed explanation!:cooltshirt_thumbs_up_britney_pom_piece_of_me:

What I typed was my gut feeling, but I’m open to other interpretations. :chrissy_xtina_head_tilt_purse_sass:

For all we know, Britney could just go to their Congressional office for a private conversation and that’s it. And then they get to go on cable news and boast about talking to Britney without introducing any legislation.

In my opinion, it would be more legitimate if Britney were invited by a Congressperson to provide testimony in front of a House Committee that was working on legislation to regulate/reform conservatorships…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Urbanney said:

I appreciate the gesture but I just can’t get behind the idea of it coming from Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

Me waiting for you to work in Congress and bring awareness to Britney’s situation :teigen_chrissy_eek_awkward_um_cringe: 

At this point she needs all the exposure that she can get in my opinion :lostney_britney_what_confused_huh_who_looking_around_glory:

  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, K3yN said:

I have a question for the US fans. What do you think it’s better, accept the proposal despite who is signing the letter or deny it because of it? Is it really that bad? Sorry but I’m not really informed about US politics :enigma_alien_blue:.

Obviously accept the proposal. It’s childish and immature not to accept an invitation to speak in front of the Congress just because you don’t like the political party they represent.

That’s like desiring to prolong your prison sentence because you don’t like the security that can release you earlier.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, GirlOnTheMoon said:

Obviously accept the proposal. It’s childish and immature not to accept an invitation to speak in front of the Congress just because you don’t like the political party they represent.

That’s like desiring to prolong your prison sentence because you don’t like the security that can release you earlier.

Right? Like get up there and expose them and end this once and for all! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • Super Mods
1 minute ago, BritneyLVR said:

Right? Like get up there and expose them and end this once and for all! 

Just curious, but how do you think Britney testifying to Congress would end her conservatorship? In the letter, it doesn’t say that she’d be speaking to a House Committee, where laws are made. It’s unclear if her conversation would even be public or on the record…

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SlayOut said:

Just curious, but how do you think Britney testifying to Congress would end her conservatorship? In the letter, it doesn’t say that she’d be speaking to a House Committee, where laws are made. It’s unclear if her conversation would even be public or on the record…

 

Look at what happened after she spoke out. She needs to speak out about this as much as she can. Once she does this, it goes to this person which then goes to this person which then gets back to the judge. It’s about the bigger picture here. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SlayOut said:

I think that this meeting is all political theater for a few reasons:

  1. The signatories of the letter are all embroiled in some form of scandal. Matt Gaetz for s** trafficking, Marjorie Taylor Greene has been stripped of all House committee assignments for promoting political violence against her colleagues, among her other incendiary/horrible comments, Andy Biggs has perpetuated the Big Lie (aka election was stolen, and Burgess Owens is new to Congress and doesn’t have much experience…
  2. The letter does not indicate that she is speaking to a specific committee in the House of Representatives. And they do not have power to let her speak to the full House or Senate.
  3. Due to Point 2, it’s unclear if her testimony will be public or even submitted to the Congressional record.
  4. None of them are representatives in California, where her conservatorship is based. Therefore, they cannot change California law based on whatever Britney says. They could potential start legislation at the federal level, but I’m not sure if they’re on the appropriate committees to make that happen.
  5. His letter is addressed to “Ms. Britney Spears” with her address being in “Beverley Hills, CA 90210.” She obviously does not live there.

In my opinion, it seems like they’re trying to capitalize off of Britney’s testimony for their own gain (they hate California because it’s run by Democrats, so why not drag the California court system using Britney’s story as proof) and to distract from their own political issues.

TLDR; Don’t fall for the grift. :staysalty_hands_rub_so_there_blue_walk_away_made_my_point:

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reasoning.  I wish I had the composure and calmness regarding these issues so that I could discuss then without feeling like I want to bang my head against a wall..  Regarding the topic at hand, do I think she should testify to congress?  Absolutely.  Do I think any of these predators should be questioning or even communicating with her?  Absolutely not.  They are dangerous, they are abusive and they are leeches who take advantage of everything and everyone.  They should take their Jewish space lasers and go home.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SlayOut said:

I think that this meeting is all political theater for a few reasons:

  1. The signatories of the letter are all embroiled in some form of scandal. Matt Gaetz for s** trafficking, Marjorie Taylor Greene has been stripped of all House committee assignments for promoting political violence against her colleagues, among her other incendiary/horrible comments, Andy Biggs has perpetuated the Big Lie (aka election was stolen, and Burgess Owens is new to Congress and doesn’t have much experience…
  2. The letter does not indicate that she is speaking to a specific committee in the House of Representatives. And they do not have power to let her speak to the full House or Senate.
  3. Due to Point 2, it’s unclear if her testimony will be public or even submitted to the Congressional record.
  4. None of them are representatives in California, where her conservatorship is based. Therefore, they cannot change California law based on whatever Britney says. They could potential start legislation at the federal level, but I’m not sure if they’re on the appropriate committees to make that happen.
  5. His letter is addressed to “Ms. Britney Spears” with her address being in “Beverley Hills, CA 90210.” She obviously does not live there.

In my opinion, it seems like they’re trying to capitalize off of Britney’s testimony for their own gain (they hate California because it’s run by Democrats, so why not drag the California court system using Britney’s story as proof) and to distract from their own political issues.

TLDR; Don’t fall for the grift. :staysalty_hands_rub_so_there_blue_walk_away_made_my_point:

Accidental double post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block