Biden issues pre-emptive pardons in final hours for Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Milley and others
- Thread starter Mr.Gr33k
- Start date
John Brennan is upset that the 51 Spies Who Lied had their security clearances revoked: "[Trump] misrepresented the facts in that executive order because it said that we had suggested that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation." "No, we said it was for the hallmarks of Russian information operations." The carefully crafted language that afforded this election interference op and its perpetrators cover is meaningless — the intent was clear: Give Biden and legacy media 11th-hour propaganda to combat the truths contained on the laptop. Finally, there is some measure of accountability.
If they are determined enough, they will do scandalous shit like over turning Roe v Wade.
But this would be re-write proof against any court less cynical and opportunistic. The 1898 decision has lasted for 125 years ffs!
It is important to know all the facts before making certain comments. I KNOW I KNOW, you're going to accuse me of being off-topic to deflect but I'm just going to leave this here for your reading pleasure.
Does the DOJ target more Republicans than Democrats? Here’s the data
I don't think Wyatt was saying they were the same.
He was saying there is a history of punishing people for having documents without intent and she should have suffered that punishment.
That Trump did something much worse doesn't appear to be part of his argument.
So clearly it is due for a review.
Or, as Wyatt put it, it was written for a totally different circumstance and must be clarified.
You need to get over the "but this makes no fucking sense to me" objection.
This all makes perfect sense to other people.
It's like all those people who look at Trump and see a strong, masculine leader worthy of fanatical devotion.
Your instinct is to think they are lying or making it up or are claiming that while they have another agenda, because it is beyond your comprehension that anyone would really think like this.
But you have to accept that people just think completely different than you do.
It's crazy, but it is what it is.
It is true. Like my ex's Great Dane puppy liked eating dog turds. Or like Mitch.So clearly it is due for a review.
Or, as Wyatt put it, it was written for a totally different circumstance and must be clarified.
You need to get over the "but this makes no fucking sense to me" objection.
This all makes perfect sense to other people.
It's like all those people who look at Trump and see a strong, masculine leader worthy of fanatical devotion.
Your instinct is to think they are lying or making it up or are claiming that while they have another agenda, because it is beyond your comprehension that anyone would really think like this.
But you have to accept that people just think completely different than you do.
It's crazy, but it is what it is.
OTOH, I DO know how judges think. And 125 years of consistent interpretation meets the judicial objectives of predictability and reliability - good things for a law to be.
So that's a massive impetus to simply uphold the current interpretation of the 14A - unless that panel is EXTREMELY ideologically motivated to change that interpretation - as with Roe.
And even if so - again - do they want the new interpretation to be brought about by an administrative act, rather than legislation with the attendant public debate and argument of the latter???
Last edited:
People can rationalize all kinds of horrid shite.It is true. Like my ex's Great Dane puppy liked eating dog turds. Or like Mitch.
OTOH, I DO know how judges think. And 125 years of consistent interpretation meets the judicial objectives of predictability and reliability - good things for a law to be.
So that's a massive impetus to simply uphold the current interpretation of the 14A - unless that panel is EXTREMELY ideologically motivated to change that interpretation - as with Roe.
And even if so - again - do they want the new interpretation to be brought about by an administrative act, rather than legislation with the attendant public debate and argument of the latter???
Valcazar even said it was 'pragmatic' to support genocide this year.
Now we are witnessing the decline of the American empire.
I came across this commentary from an appellate law firm. The firm itself is not important to this conversation. I just think they sum things up nicely.So clearly it is due for a review.
Or, as Wyatt put it, it was written for a totally different circumstance and must be clarified.
You need to get over the "but this makes no fucking sense to me" objection.
This all makes perfect sense to other people.
It's like all those people who look at Trump and see a strong, masculine leader worthy of fanatical devotion.
Your instinct is to think they are lying or making it up or are claiming that while they have another agenda, because it is beyond your comprehension that anyone would really think like this.
But you have to accept that people just think completely different than you do.
It's crazy, but it is what it is.
"Ultimately, cries of “unprecedented” executive action on both sides are more histrionic than historical. Yet because they are so easily overturned, repealed, or limited by law, presidents have wisely preferred legislation to executive actions when crafting policy. Accordingly, the ultimate impact of Trump’s executive actions thus far (and to come) remains to be seen. Some will surely affect the lives of hundreds or thousands or more, for better or for worse, while others may serve as little more than symbolic point-scoring with partisan constituencies in the next election."
The Surprisingly Contentious History of Executive Orders
This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post on February 2, 2017. Recently, USA Today savaged President Trump’s executive orders since taking office, from encouraging Keystone XL […]
calg.com
The thing here is the GOP have a long history of trumping up bullshit to slander or hinder politicians they don't like. Look at Benghazi, the emails, the Biden bribery allegations. All of which were thoroughly investigated and no charges were ever laid. This would just be the same, a lot of thunder and little actual evidence or what not. The right accused the left of going after Trump with so-called law-fare. It looks like Trump would have likely been convicted if he didn't get elected in a few of those cases (ironically, including the election tampering scheme that led to the January 6th insurrection...)....
And, the way I read this, the whole point of these pardons is to stop the GOP from doing this revenge tour. Because, we all know that's what Trump lives for. And, to be frank, I doubt there would be any incriminating testimony if they were called to testify.
I'm sorry but this is just the 5,000 post about how Trump is a criminal, Democrats are just in going after him and Republicans are unjust.
You do realize there are Independents and some Democrats in the U.S. who dislike Trump, but are tired of prosecutors going after Trump for over four years now. I always say Americans are pragmatic. They're certainly more pragmatic than most of the TERB membership.
Last edited:
And - as I predicted - a judge has blocked Trumpo's attack on the 14A....
x.com
BREAKING: U.S. Judge Blocks President Trump's Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship, Calling It "Blatantly Unconstitutional"
Another loss for those who don't understand the Constitution!
x.com
x.com
BREAKING: U.S. Judge Blocks President Trump's Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship, Calling It "Blatantly Unconstitutional"
Another loss for those who don't understand the Constitution!
x.com
x.com
Anyone could have predicted this, but the judges (a Reagan appointee, I should add) was scathing!
https://x.com/WilliamJDuPont/status/1882503547729879191/photo/1
US judge temporarily blocks Trump's order to change birthright citizenship - live updates
The judge called Trump's order, which was slated to take effect in February, "blatantly unconstitutional".
www.bbc.com
x.com
x.com
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announces he Will NOT COMPLY to Donald Trump’s demands for the DMV to turn over data about undocumented immigrants without due process. It gets even better. Giannoulias has also created a safe haven for women seeking an abortion, after he championed legislation that limits law enforcement’s ability to track license plates to track women driving into the state for the procedure. Giannoulias was also behind legislation that allows non-citizen residents, including undocumented immigrants, to obtain a standard driver's license or state ID — that ensures all drivers pass a test and do so safely.
I believe that the Feds forcing states to cooperate in law enforcement is actually another constitutional issue. I will try to find out more.
Earp, did the first judge to rule on the birthright citizenship issue do EXACTLY what I said he would do and use the same language of shock and revulsion as I myself?....
Stop sabre-rattling with Kisser. Trump should have gone to jail and worked in the toilets there scrubbing the floor with his toupee instead of a mop. He got voted back into office by a narrow margin of unsophisticated voters and lost heavily among educated and urban voters. Informed Americans find him sleazy, corrupt and senile.
He is a senile corrupt fool and will spend the next 4 years pulling crypto scams and driving around Lago in his golf cart leaking urine through his adult diapers and watching Fox News.
You stand on this board shoulder-to-shoulder with Mitch, Addict, Parker and Skoob as the Trump "old guard".
The usual legal issue with EO's is whether they are sufficiently in line with the empowering legislation and sufficiently reasonable to be ruled valid delegated legislation. Actual legislated legislation does not have this problem.I came across this commentary from an appellate law firm. The firm itself is not important to this conversation. I just think they sum things up nicely.
"Ultimately, cries of “unprecedented” executive action on both sides are more histrionic than historical. Yet because they are so easily overturned, repealed, or limited by law, presidents have wisely preferred legislation to executive actions when crafting policy. Accordingly, the ultimate impact of Trump’s executive actions thus far (and to come) remains to be seen. Some will surely affect the lives of hundreds or thousands or more, for better or for worse, while others may serve as little more than symbolic point-scoring with partisan constituencies in the next election."
The Surprisingly Contentious History of Executive Orders
This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post on February 2, 2017. Recently, USA Today savaged President Trump’s executive orders since taking office, from encouraging Keystone XL […]
But you obscure the issue here - which is that an EO purporting to overturn a major constitutional amendment is about as ludicrous and over-reaching as me claiming that my poop is a gourmet delicacy or that my left nut rules Botswanaland. In other words, it's just fucking silly.
That's a lot different from disputing whether an EO on sanitary rules for dog breeding kennels in Ohio erred at law in classifying poodle-wolf crossbreeds as dogs and not wildlife and other technical issues of such nature - which are the usual gist of attacking EO's.
