New Donald Trump thread

[Howe]

15 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

you came to the right place it would seem........and throw reasoning and logic right out the door.

Will be interesting to see if people accept your new "L" word......

No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth - Plato

[TheStatGuy]

25 minutes ago, Howe said:

No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth - Plato

That explains why you, Trojandad attack me, gonzo and dante now doesn't it?

 

Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason and thats not good because you and trojandad don't understand reasoning or logic.

free advice. This might help you and trojandad. 

It is better to let people think you are stupid than to type it out and show you are stupid. 

 

[TheStatGuy]

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Thank you for not posting this response several times like you did on the other thread.

You must really be an Andrew Yang fan......remember, hit submit reply only one time......

Id rather post that 600,000 times than have your posts that clearly lack logic, reason or a coherent response.

[gonzoron]

3 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

That explains why you, Trojandad attack me, gonzo and dante now doesn't it?

 

Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason and thats not good because you and trojandad don't understand reasoning or logic.

free advice. This might help you and trojandad. 

It is better to let people think you are stupid than to type it out and show you are stupid. 

 

@Howe doesn't attack me.

[TheStatGuy]

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

@Howe doesn't attack me.

Trojandad does though. 

[Muda69]

Ignorance is voting for a member of the uni-party, for practically any office, especially POTUS.

 

 

 

 

[gonzoron]

27 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Trojandad does though. 

Nah, I don't really consider those attacks. I liken him to a Chihuahua vs. me, a Great Dane, or The Black Knight vs. Me, the king.

 

[swordfish]

18 hours ago, swordfish said:

 

Seriously, critics notwithstanding - in what what court of law can a judge (after both the prosecutor and the defendant BOTH determine to drop a case brought before it) determine he/she can exact prosecution on the defendant?  Isn't a judge.....a judge?  IMHO - This guy needs to be thrown off the bench.

 

Yet nobody wants to answer this question!!!???  Again - IMHO - this judge should be tossed from the bench for this.  Am I wrong?  Legal Beagles?

Edited May 21, 2020 by swordfish

[Bobref]

19 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/michael-flynns-attorneys-appeal-court-order-that-allows-outside-groups-retired-federal-judge-to-argue-against-tossing-guilty-plea/2020/05/19/9e8e014c-99dc-11ea-a282-386f56d579e6_story.html

Michael Flynn’s attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to order a federal judge to dismiss the conviction of President Trump’s former national security adviser. Flynn’s lawyers also asked the appeals court in Washington to reverse the judge’s order allowing outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s request to toss the case.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case to hear from interested parties and appointed former New York federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the government request. Sullivan also asked Gleeson to examine whether the former three-star general may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.

In a 44-page filing to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Flynn’s lawyers accused Sullivan of bias and acting at “loggerheads” with recent Supreme Court precedent. Sidney Powell and Flynn’s other attorneys also asked that the case be reassigned for any future proceedings.

“The egregious Government misconduct, and the three-year abuse of General Flynn and his family, cry out for ending this ordeal immediately and permanently,” Powell wrote. “The district judge’s orders reveal his plan to continue the case indefinitely, rubbing salt in General Flynn’s open wound from the Government’s misconduct and threatening him with criminal contempt.”

The Justice Department on May 7 moved to toss out the guilty plea of the highest-ranking Trump adviser convicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. The department concluded that Flynn should never have been interviewed by the FBI and therefore his lies concealing his Russian contacts were immaterial to any crime.

Critics dispute the department’s move, saying it distorted facts and appeared to serve the president’s personal political interests by giving an aide impunity to lie to government investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying in an FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, to conceal conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador at the time. The conversations involved talks before Trump took office about avoiding U.S. sanctions and other policies imposed late in Barack Obama’s administration after Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

In a declassified email released Tuesday by Senate Republicans, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice noted concern in Obama’s White House about the frequency of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak and that the then-FBI director said sharing classified information with him could “potentially” be an issue. Obama emphasized that the handling of the Russia investigation should be done by the book, Rice wrote in a note to herself on Jan. 20, 2017, which was Inauguration Day.

In their filing Tuesday, Flynn’s lawyers said prosecutors, not judges, have the authority to decide how to handle pending criminal charges. Judges, they said, may not “change the issues in the case by inviting or appointing” others to perform the executive branch’s duties to investigate or prosecute.

“A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has ‘a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,’ they said. “Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s ‘conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.’”

In asking that the case be reassigned, Flynn’s defense criticized Sullivan for suggesting at a December 2018 hearing that Flynn may have committed “treason,” before correcting himself, and for saying the former general had “sold [his] country out.”

“This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself,” Powell wrote. “He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.”

 

The filing also suggests that the retired judge Sullivan appointed is not impartial because of an opinion piece by Gleeson that appeared in The Washington Post. In the article, Gleeson questioned the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the case against Flynn and suggested that the court “assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.”

Flynn’s attorneys petitioned the appeals court for a writ of mandamus, used when no other relief is available, that requires a party to show “clear and indisputable” right to reverse error by a court. Meeting that high bar may be difficult because the judge has not made a decision yet on the Justice Department’s request, but has appointed a retired judge to advise him now that the government has decided to drop the case.

In abandoning the nearly three-year-old case, the Justice Department cited recently uncovered FBI records showing that the bureau had decided to close a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn — dubbed Operation Razor — before learning of his December 2016 calls with Kislyak. The Justice Department also said the FBI knew from transcripts that the calls probably did not give rise to a crime by themselves and that FBI officials differed over how to handle or interpret his actions.

 

Legal analysts and those involved in the case vigorously dispute the Justice Department’s claims as an attempt to please the president and attack his adversaries.

Critics of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision argued that the FBI had ample legitimate grounds to investigate Flynn’s lies, which went to the heart of the investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia’s interference in the election.

Flynn admitted under oath three times before two federal judges that he gave false statements to the FBI as well as to the White House. Federal law criminalizes lying in any matter under court, congressional or executive branch jurisdiction.

 

Seriously, critics notwithstanding - in what what court of law can a judge (after both the prosecutor and the defendant BOTH determine to drop a case brought before it) determine he/she can exact prosecution on the defendant?  Isn't a judge.....a judge?  IMHO - This guy needs to be thrown off the bench.

 

33 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Yet nobody wants to answer this question!!!???  Again - IMHO - this judge should be tossed from the bench for this.  Am I wrong?  Legal Beagles?

Keep in mind that this case is an entirely different type of proceeding than a normal prosecution because there was a special prosecutor, not Justice Department lawyers, who decided to charge Flynn. That could make all the difference in the Court of Appeals. It’ll be very interesting to see how it plays out.

Edit: Upon further review, the Flynn prosecutors were DOJ attorneys, but they were not from the DC US Attorney’s office. They were appointed by the Attorney General. I think the questions regarding the district judge’s ability to take this sort of “activist” role is novel.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Bobref

[Bobref]

I also note that Judge Sullivan was a Clinton appointee to the federal bench, for whatever that’s worth.

[swordfish]

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

Keep in mind that this case is an entirely different type of proceeding than a normal prosecution because there was a special prosecutor, not Justice Department lawyers, who decided to charge Flynn. That could make all the difference in the Court of Appeals. It’ll be very interesting to see how it plays out.

Edit: Upon further review, the Flynn prosecutors were DOJ attorneys, but they were not from the DC US Attorney’s office. They were appointed by the Attorney General. I think the questions regarding the district judge’s ability to take this sort of “activist” role is novel.

Thanks Bobref.  Can you expound on your statement I highlighted?  Do you think the questions raised are novel or the judge's "activism"?

[Bobref]

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

Thanks Bobref.  Can you expound on your statement I highlighted?  Do you think the questions raised are novel or the judge's "activism"?

I don’t think you can separate the two. It’s a unique situation, to which the judge fashioned a unique response.

[TheStatGuy]

4 hours ago, Bobref said:

I also note that Judge Sullivan was a Clinton appointee to the federal bench, for whatever that’s worth.

I think that doesn't have an ounce of salt to it. 

He was appointed to the bench of superior court by Ronnie. To the court of appeals by Bush 41...seems he impressed both parties. 

Is it he or Gleeson that brought down Gotti?

[gonzoron]

35 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

I think that doesn't have an ounce of salt to it. 

He was appointed to the bench of superior court by Ronnie. To the court of appeals by Bush 41...seems he impressed both parties. 

Is it he or Gleeson that brought down Gotti?

Those appointments don’t count. They don’t fit the narrative. 
He must have turned “activist” after Clinton appointed him, lol.

[gonzoron]

17 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

you’re no Anikan Skywalker

He's my father.

[swordfish]

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

I don’t think you can separate the two. It’s a unique situation, to which the judge fashioned a unique response.

 

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Those appointments don’t count. They don’t fit the narrative. 
He must have turned “activist” after Clinton appointed him, lol.

Gonzo, I prefer to take BR's characterization of a "unique response"  to mean he's not sure what happened here as well.  I have to believe that a judge at the level of Sullivan would have the smarts to know what he's doing.  That's why while I still think it's a wrong move (IMHO) I asked the question hoping that BR would toss his $ .02 in, and true to form he makes sense.  We will have to wait and see how this plays out.

[Howe]

Michael Flynn will not spend a single day behind bars and his record will be expunged. Judge Sullivan is wasting money. 

[gonzoron]

39 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

Gonzo, I prefer to take BR's characterization of a "unique response"  to mean he's not sure what happened here as well.  I have to believe that a judge at the level of Sullivan would have the smarts to know what he's doing.  That's why while I still think it's a wrong move (IMHO) I asked the question hoping that BR would toss his $ .02 in, and true to form he makes sense.  We will have to wait and see how this plays out.

Well, he is 72 years old. At that age, I'm sure Judges and Attorneys have a certain "Get off my lawn" demeanor.

[gonzoron]

53 minutes ago, swordfish said:

I asked the question hoping that BR would toss his $ .02 in, and true to form he makes sense.

Then why did you react confused to his response? Now I'm confused.

 

[TheStatGuy]

3 hours ago, Howe said:

Michael Flynn will not spend a single day behind bars and his record will be expunged. Judge Sullivan is wasting money. 

Its not wasting money when the dude broke the law and should be in jail...luckily for him.. Trump put in Barr who has lot all credibility, is now a laughing stock in the FBI, DOJ AND CIA and will never get back is rep.. And oh he may end up in jail like Flynn when trump loses in November. 

 

 

[gonzoron]

5 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Nope...you appointed yourself King.  For once, I think you got it right...........fits with the stalker reputation.....

If you do think he's really your "Daddy"....may want to keep that one private.....

 

 

[Howe]

 

[swordfish]

15 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Then why did you react confused to his response? Now I'm confused.

 

It was a uniquely agreeable confused to BR's assertion that it was a unique situation ....

[Muda69]

You fellows do know it's Anakin Skywalker,  not Anikan?    Sorry, the SW geek in me just couldn't keep letting that slide.

 

[Muda69]

And to get back on topic:

Why Does Trump Want To Stop People From Voting by Mail?

https://reason.com/2020/05/21/why-does-trump-want-to-stop-people-from-voting-by-mail/

Quote

Donald Trump, a longtime fan of double standards, conspiracy theories, and imaginary presidential powers, pulled off a trifecta yesterday with his comments about absentee voting.

"Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election," the president tweeted on Wednesday morning. "This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!" In a rare concession to reality, he amended that tweet in the afternoon, replacing "absentee ballots" with "absentee ballot applications," which are what Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson actually sent to registered voters.

Trump is also upset about absentee voting in Nevada. "State of Nevada 'thinks' that they can send out illegal vote by mail ballots, creating a great Voter Fraud scenario for the State and the U.S.," he tweeted in the morning. "They can't! If they do, 'I think' I can hold up funds to the State. Sorry, but you must not cheat in elections."

Since Trump himself voted by absentee ballot in Florida's presidential primary two months ago, you might wonder why he wants to deny Michigan and Nevada voters the same opportunity, especially at a time when COVID-19 fears might make people reluctant to gather at polling places. And why those states specifically, when five states (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) conduct elections almost entirely by mail, while 28 others require no special justification for absentee voting? You also might wonder why Trump views voting by mail in those states as illegal, cheating, or a form of voter fraud. In any case, why does Trump think he has the authority to punish states for election procedures he does not like by withholding federal funding?

Those are all good questions. Unfortunately, there are no good answers.

Michigan and Nevada are both battleground states where the margins of victory were small in the 2016 presidential election. Trump won Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes, about 0.02 percent of the ballots cast. Hillary Clinton won Nevada by about 27,000 votes, 2.4 percent of the ballots cast.

Are Democrats more likely to vote by mail than Republicans? Trump certainly seems to think so. In a March 30 interview on Fox News, he criticized COVID-19 legislation proposed by House Democrats that would have required states to allow "no excuse" absentee ballot applications and, if an election is held during a national emergency, to send every registered voter a mail-in ballot. "The things they had in there were crazy," Trump said. "They had things—levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."

Notwithstanding that dire prediction, the evidence concerning the partisan impact of voting by mail is mixed. Pantheon Analytics found that switching to mail-in ballots in Colorado gave a slight advantage to Republican candidates in 2014, while that change in Utah gave a slight advantage to Democrats in 2016. In both cases, voting by mail increased participation in the election, as you would expect. But contrary to the fears often expressed by Republican politicians, that turnout boost does not seem to consistently favor Democrats. In 2016, for instance, 15.5 percent of registered Republicans who voted in North Carolina used mail-in ballots, compared to 8.8 percent of registered Democrats.

Thad Kousser, chairman of the political science department at the University of California, San Diego, notes that mail-in ballots are especially appealing to older and rural voters, who are more inclined to vote for Republicans. He also cites California data indicating that black and Latino voters, who tend to favor Democrats, are less likely than whites to vote by mail. "There are still Republicans elected in many of the areas that have voting by mail," Kousser told The New York Times last month. "Democrats and Republicans alike appreciate this option."

Trump did not explain why he thinks absentee voting in Michigan or Nevada is illegal. "No excuse" absentee voting in Michigan was authorized by a 2018 ballot initiative. "I'm dumbfounded that this is controversial," Benson said on MSNBC last night, "especially because there are Democratic and Republican secretaries of state doing just what we're doing here in Michigan."

Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske was similarly puzzled, saying she "lawfully declared the 2020 primary election as a mail-in election" in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She notes that a federal judge, responding to a challenge by a conservative group, recently agreed that she "lawfully exercised authority granted to her by state law to call for a primary election conducted primarily by mail ballot."

What about Trump's claim that absentee ballots enable voter fraud? The issue is a personal obsession for Trump, who implausibly blamed massive fraud for costing him his rightful popular-vote victory in 2016. Even if we charitably treat that concern as distinct from the unsubstantiated fear that mail-in ballots favor Democrats, there is little evidence that voter fraud is a substantial problem, regardless of how people cast their ballots.

While it's true that voting by mail is especially vulnerable to fraud, such incidents are still highly unusual. "Election fraud in the United States is very rare, but the most common type of such fraud in the United States involves absentee ballots," Rick Hasen, an election expert at the University of California, Irvine, law school, told the Times in April. "Sensible rules for handling of absentee ballots make sense, not only to minimize the risk of ballot tampering but to ensure that voters cast valid ballots." The five states where voting by mail is the norm "report very little fraud," the Times notes.

Even if wide absentee voting were a conspiracy by Democrats to get a leg up on Republicans through increased turnout and rampant fraud, would the president have the power to fight back by denying federal funding to states that make it easier to vote by mail? "If the president is able to impose his own new conditions on federal grants to states and localities, it would be a serious threat to both federalism and separation of powers," George Mason law professor Ilya Somin warns in a Volokh Conspiracy post. "The vast expansion of federal spending and state dependence thereon during the coronavirus crisis has made this an even more serious danger than before."

Somin notes that "the extent of mail voting is one of of many aspects of election administration that the Constitution largely leaves to state governments." He adds that "the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to allocate federal spending, including imposing conditions on state and local government grant recipients."

In case constitutional considerations do not suffice, Somin urges Republicans to imagine the possibility that their party will not always control the White House. "If the president can get around such restrictions and impose his own new conditions on federal grants to state government, he could use that power to bully states and localities on a wide range of issues," he writes. "Conservatives who might be happy to see Trump wield that authority should ask how they would feel when Joe Biden (or some other future Democratic president) does the same thing. The same tools Trump uses to pressure blue and purple states can easily be turned against red states."