New Donald Trump thread

[swordfish]

[swordfish]

Another "Bidenism" - 

https://apnews.com/323bba8b134eaedd188cf73122036a93

WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Biden said Wednesday that President Donald Trump was the country’s “first” racist president.

 

[Muda69]

Where's Republican Federalism During Trump's Urban Invasions?

https://reason.com/2020/07/24/wheres-republican-federalism-during-trumps-urban-invasions/

Quote

 

(Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom)

There's no question that the federal agents arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon, are acting against the wishes of state and local authorities. The mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon both asked the Trump administration to remove its troops, and officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security refused. That reflects poorly on an executive branch in the hands of a political party supposedly committed to letting state and local governments take the lead on most issues.

The controversy began with reports of federal officers driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked minivans and arresting protesters. Some face charges, but others are briefly detained and then released.

Local officials and people in the streets may be at odds over racial tensions and police conduct, but nobody invited the feds to join the party. "Keep your troops in your own buildings, or have them leave our city," Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told the feds last week.

"I told acting Secretary Wolf that the federal government should remove all federal officers from our streets," Oregon Governor Kate Brown said. "His response showed me he is on a mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes."

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf's response really was pretty confrontational. "The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city," Wolf said. "This siege can end if state and local officials decide to take appropriate action instead of refusing to enforce the law."

Federal officials do have the authority and responsibility to protect federal property. But Wolf's statement goes well beyond that, reiterating an "offer to assist local and state leaders to bring an end to the violence perpetuated by anarchists."

President Trump is clear, too, that federal agents are in Portland to do more than protect courthouses and office buildings.

"We're going to have more federal law enforcement—that, I can tell you," Trump remarked this week. "In Portland, they've done a fantastic job. They've been there three days, and they really have done a fantastic job in very short period of time. No problem. They grab them; a lot of people in jail. They're leaders. These are anarchists. These are not protestors. People say 'protestors'; these people are anarchists. These are people that hate our country. And we're not going to let it go forward."

What if local officials don't want the feds there?

"The governor and the mayor and the senators out there, they're afraid of these people.  That's the reason they don't want us to help them," Trump dismissively added.

Whether or not state and local officials are up to handling sometimes-violent protests on their own, dismissing their right to handle local issues their own way is remarkable for a Republican president. After all, Trump represents a political party that to this day officially prefers state and local decision-making over federal policy.

"The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated; the states and the people retain authority over all unenumerated powers," states the Republican Party platform of 2016, which the GOP readopted this year. "In obedience to that principle, we condemn the current Administration's unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments in matters ranging from voter identification (ID) laws to immigration, from healthcare programs to land use decisions, and from forced education curricula to school restroom policies."

It's very difficult to reconcile the Republican Party's condemnation of "unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments," with an announced intention to deploy federal law enforcement agents against protesters in Portland over the protests of the governor and the mayor, and to expand federal intervention elsewhere—apparently starting with Chicago and Albuquerque‚despite local objections. It just looks like just another example of bullying to add to the list.

How do the feds justify forcing their way in? The administration hasn't said, but maybe by leveraging the expanded leeway the courts allow the federal government within 100 miles of the border, or maybe through stretched-to-the-breaking-point interpretations of other laws regarding federal authority.

State and local officials definitely aren't pleased.

"The majority of the protests have been peaceful and aimed at improving our communities. Where this is not the case, it still does not justify the use of federal forces. Unilaterally deploying these paramilitary-type forces into our cities is wholly inconsistent with our system of democracy and our most basic values," the mayors of Seattle, Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Missouri, and Portland, Oregon, wrote to Wolf and Attorney General William Barr this week. "We urge you to take immediate action to withdraw your forces and agree to no further unilateral deployments in our cities."

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner went a step further, promising that "anyone, including federal law enforcement, who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people will face criminal charges from my office."

None of this is to say that state and local officials are necessarily the best people to handle any given problem. Nothing guarantees that mayors are more competent than presidents. Protests for changes in the way law enforcement does its business are concentrated in large cities where officials presided over the creation of often abusive and largely unaccountable police departments. Those departments are now, awkwardly, tasked with keeping the cap on protests against them.

Mayor Wheeler of Portland seems particularly hapless. He's long been accused of supporting left-wing rioters, but protesters now march through the streets cursing his name. The guy can't win.

But it's not the place for the federal government to muscle aside local authorities when they don't do their jobs in ways that federal officials might prefer. "The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated," as the GOP itself points out.

The need for federal restraint is especially true when the president makes it clear that partisan posturing is behind his desire to send in federal forces.

"Look at what's going on" in cities where federal agents will be sent, snorted Trump as he explained his rationale for intervention. "All run by Democrats, all run by very liberal Democrats. All run, really, by radical left."

So much for the Republican Party's espoused belief that "Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans."

 

[TheStatGuy]

On 7/23/2020 at 8:17 AM, swordfish said:

When was Clinton predicted to win in a landslide? 

[psaboy]

8 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Where's Republican Federalism During Trump's Urban Invasions?

https://reason.com/2020/07/24/wheres-republican-federalism-during-trumps-urban-invasions/

 

You mess with Federal property and the local police won't take care of, then the Fed's move in. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Muda69]

10 hours ago, psaboy said:

You mess with Federal property and the local police won't take care of, then the Fed's move in. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Did you even read the article?  Anything wrong with these statements in your book?:

Quote

Federal officials do have the authority and responsibility to protect federal property. But Wolf's statement goes well beyond that, reiterating an "offer to assist local and state leaders to bring an end to the violence perpetuated by anarchists."

President Trump is clear, too, that federal agents are in Portland to do more than protect courthouses and office buildings.

 

[psaboy]

42 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Did you even read the article?  Anything wrong with these statements in your book?:

 

Yes,, I did. Just enforcing my thoughts om subject. Here is another good piece of info on the subject. 

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland on Friday rejected Oregon’s legal bid to restrict the operations of federal agents who have been battling protesters nightly in the city.

The lawsuit by Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, argued that the operations of federal authorities, who were using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters, resembled abductions. It called on the court to order the agents to stop arresting individuals without probable cause and to clearly identify themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting “any person off the streets in Oregon.”

In his ruling, Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court in Portland said the attorney general’s office did not have standing to bring the case because it had not shown that the issue was “an interest that is specific to the state itself.”

“I find the State of Oregon lacks standing here and therefore deny its request for a temporary restraining order,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“I am quite disappointed,” Ms. Rosenblum said in an interview. “If I don’t have standing, I’m not quite sure who does.”

A number of other lawsuits have been filed by private parties against the presence of the federal agents, and Ms. Rosenblum said she hoped they would be more successful.

[Muda69]

5 hours ago, psaboy said:

Yes,, I did. Just enforcing my thoughts om subject. Here is another good piece of info on the subject. 

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland on Friday rejected Oregon’s legal bid to restrict the operations of federal agents who have been battling protesters nightly in the city.

The lawsuit by Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, argued that the operations of federal authorities, who were using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters, resembled abductions. It called on the court to order the agents to stop arresting individuals without probable cause and to clearly identify themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting “any person off the streets in Oregon.”

In his ruling, Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court in Portland said the attorney general’s office did not have standing to bring the case because it had not shown that the issue was “an interest that is specific to the state itself.”

“I find the State of Oregon lacks standing here and therefore deny its request for a temporary restraining order,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“I am quite disappointed,” Ms. Rosenblum said in an interview. “If I don’t have standing, I’m not quite sure who does.”

A number of other lawsuits have been filed by private parties against the presence of the federal agents, and Ms. Rosenblum said she hoped they would be more successful.

So you are ok with the federal LEO's/troops in Portland doing more than just protecting federal courthouses and federal office buildings?

 

[psaboy]

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

So you are ok with the federal LEO's/troops in Portland doing more than just protecting federal courthouses and federal office buildings?

 

Yes, if the local "barneys" cant protect the public and businesses. 

[Muda69]

On 7/25/2020 at 6:06 PM, psaboy said:

Yes, if the local "barneys" cant protect the public and businesses. 

That's a slippery slope I don't want to go down.  And neither should you.

 

[psaboy]

9 hours ago, Muda69 said:

That's a slippery slope I don't want to go down.  And neither should you.

 

Ha, probably is most things are turning into "slippery slopes" nowadays, too hard to take a stand one way or the other. 

[Muda69]

14 hours ago, psaboy said:

Ha, probably is most things are turning into "slippery slopes" nowadays, too hard to take a stand one way or the other. 

I'll lean on a strict view on the U.S. Constitution, TYVM.

 

[psaboy]

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland on Friday rejected Oregon’s legal bid to restrict the operations of federal agents who have been battling protesters nightly in the city.

The lawsuit by Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, argued that the operations of federal authorities, who were using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters, resembled abductions. It called on the court to order the agents to stop arresting individuals without probable cause and to clearly identify themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting “any person off the streets in Oregon.”

In his ruling, Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court in Portland said the attorney general’s office did not have standing to bring the case because it had not shown that the issue was “an interest that is specific to the state itself.”

“I find the State of Oregon lacks standing here and therefore deny its request for a temporary restraining order,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“I am quite disappointed,” Ms. Rosenblum said in an interview. “If I don’t have standing, I’m not quite sure who does.”

A number of other lawsuits have been filed by private parties against the presence of the federal agents, and Ms. Rosenblum said she hoped they would be more successful.

[Muda69]

44 minutes ago, psaboy said:

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Portland on Friday rejected Oregon’s legal bid to restrict the operations of federal agents who have been battling protesters nightly in the city.

The lawsuit by Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, argued that the operations of federal authorities, who were using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters, resembled abductions. It called on the court to order the agents to stop arresting individuals without probable cause and to clearly identify themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting “any person off the streets in Oregon.”

In his ruling, Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court in Portland said the attorney general’s office did not have standing to bring the case because it had not shown that the issue was “an interest that is specific to the state itself.”

“I find the State of Oregon lacks standing here and therefore deny its request for a temporary restraining order,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“I am quite disappointed,” Ms. Rosenblum said in an interview. “If I don’t have standing, I’m not quite sure who does.”

A number of other lawsuits have been filed by private parties against the presence of the federal agents, and Ms. Rosenblum said she hoped they would be more successful.

Key words "Federal Judge".  And the honorable Mr. Mosman wants to protect his home, aka the federal courthouse in Portland, by practically any means necessary.  Civil liberties be damned.

 

 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Key words "Federal Judge".  And the honorable Mr. Mosman wants to protect his home, aka the federal courthouse in Portland, by practically any means necessary.  Civil liberties be damned.

Unusually quick to attach motive to a legal decision, especially in the absence of any evidence. It’s not really an opinion, just cynicism.

If I were a citizen of Oregon, I’d be more concerned that my state’s chief legal officer doesn’t have a grasp of the legal concept of “standing,” something everyone learns in their first year of law school.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Bobref

[Muda69]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Unusually quick to attach motive to a legal decision, especially in the absence of any evidence. It’s not really an opinion, just cynicism.

If I were a citizen of Oregon, I’d be more concerned that my state’s chief legal officer doesn’t have a grasp of the legal concept of “standing,” something everyone learns in their first year of law school.

There is plenty of evidence. It's called "unmarked vans" and "nebulous federal LEO's with just "POLICE" on the front of their uniform/armor".

So you don't think the Oregon state AG should be concerned when federal authorities are picking up Oregon citizens in unmarked vehicles and detaining them?

 

 

[Bobref]

49 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

There is plenty of evidence. It's called "unmarked vans" and "nebulous federal LEO's with just "POLICE" on the front of their uniform/armor".

So you don't think the Oregon state AG should be concerned when federal authorities are picking up Oregon citizens in unmarked vehicles and detaining them?

 

 

Assuming that is actually happening, I can see where there would be concern. But this is a legal issue involving the constitutional law concept of “standing.” It has nothing to do with the substance of the matter. Essentially, it’s a legal determination that the wrong plaintiff brought the suit. It doesn’t say anything about the merits.

And by “evidence,” I meant some evidence that the judge was acting out of some sort of personal interest, rather than just deciding a legal case according to the law, as you claimed. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Bobref

[Muda69]

58 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Assuming that is actually happening, I can see where there would be concern. But this is a legal issue involving the constitutional law concept of “standing.” It has nothing to do with the substance of the matter. Essentially, it’s a legal determination that the wrong plaintiff brought the suit. It doesn’t say anything about the merits.

And by “evidence,” I meant some evidence that the judge was acting out of some sort of personal interest, rather than just deciding a legal case according to the law, as you claimed. 

So who is the "right plaintiff" in this scenario?  Is it Bob Smith, a citizen of Portland, who while walking home from a visit to the downtown Whole Foods got picked up by brownshirts in a unmarked vehicle, then was detained and questioned for a few hours before being released with just something akin to "sorry, wrong guy."?

 

[Bobref]

45 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So who is the "right plaintiff" in this scenario?  Is it Bob Smith, a citizen of Portland, who while walking home from a visit to the downtown Whole Foods got picked up by brownshirts in a unmarked vehicle, then was detained and questioned for a few hours before being released with just something akin to "sorry, wrong guy."?

 

Exactly. And my understanding is there are several of those suits already on file.

[Muda69]

5 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Exactly. And my understanding is there are several of those suits already on file.

Ahem:  https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/27/896043971/portland-protesters-file-suit-against-trump-administration-over-federal-response

 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Ahem:  https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/27/896043971/portland-protesters-file-suit-against-trump-administration-over-federal-response

 

🥱😴

[swordfish]

AG Barr today responding to Nadler: 

But Barr hit back at Nadler and the Democrats hard, saying: 'Since when is it OK to burn down a federal courthouse?'

'What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States,' Barr said.

[Muda69]

No, Trump Can't Delay the Election

https://reason.com/2020/07/30/no-trump-cant-delay-the-election/

Quote

Despite what he suggested in a Thursday morning tweet, President Donald Trump does not have the authority to cancel or postpone the 2020 general election. And if the election doesn't take place for some reason, Trump would have to leave office in January.

Let's back up. In case you haven't seen it already, here's the grenade the president tossed into the news cycle this morning (and has now "pinned" to the top of his Twitter profile):

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

 

Both sentences of the president's tweet are inaccurate, but let's take the second part first, since that's the bit that threatens to blow a gigantic hole in 230-plus years of American democratic tradition. Election dates are set by the U.S. Constitution, by Congress, and by the states—the president has literally no authority over it.

When it comes to picking the president, there's actually no constitutional requirement for a popular election at all. What the constitution does say is that Congress gets to pick the date by which the states must choose their presidential electors—that is, the 538 members of the electoral college. Under current law, that date is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

How the states pick those electors is up to each state legislature to decide. "While every state currently chooses its electors through popular election—where votes cast for presidential candidates are counted as votes for the electors pledged to those candidates—a state legislature could decide to select electors itself if it determined elections were infeasible," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted in a March report about elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. "Indeed, it was common for legislatures to select electors without popular elections until the mid-1800s."

The CRS reports that some state constitutions allow governors to postpone elections for emergencies, but there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution allowing federal officials to change the date unless Congress changes the law or a constitutional amendment is passed. But that's never happened during wars, pandemics, or other national emergencies—there is no reason to think it should happen this year.

In fact, some Republicans in Congress are already rejecting the idea.

Reminder: Election dates are set by Congress. And I will oppose any attempts to delay the #2020Election. https://t.co/ptjG86YiF6

— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) July 30, 2020

 

Just for fun, here's what would happen if enough states—presumably red states—were to cancel or postpone the election, and therefore no candidate won an outright majority in the electoral college, according to that same CRS report.

In that case, the election would be decided by the House of Representatives at the start of its next term: January 6, 2021. But the current House term expires on January 3. If, hypothetically, all elections were canceled or postponed and there was no new Congress to meet on January 6, the CRS report says, that doesn't change the fact that the incumbent president's term ends at noon on January 20th.

"There are no provisions of law permitting a President to stay in office after this date, even in the event of a national emergency, short of the ratification of a new constitutional amendment," according to the CRS. 

In that absolute worst-case scenario, the presidential order of succession would come into play. There would be no elected vice president, so Mike Pence is out of the running. If there was a functioning House of Representatives, the new Speaker of the House would become president. If that person could not serve, the president pro tempore of the Senate—currently Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), though that could change before January—would become the nation's chief executive.

The bottom line: Trump can't cancel or postpone the election, and even if the election doesn't take place for some reason, he can't legally remain in office.

What about the other part of Trump's Thursday morning bombshell tweet? For starters, he suggests that there is some difference between mail-in voting and absentee voting when they are actually the same thing. Some states require that you provide an excuse when you ask for an absentee ballot, but most have now switched to no-excuse absentee balloting—otherwise known generally as "mail-in voting"—in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Either way, the process for voting is the same: you get a ballot, you fill it out, and you mail it back.

There are also a handful of states that have switched to conducting elections entirely by mail, and none of them have seen increases in voter fraud—something that is incredibly rare no matter how elections are conducted.

Regardless of what you call it or how many people participate, there's little indication that voting by mail is some sort of scheme to defraud Republicans. Colorado is one of the states that recently switched to all-mail balloting, and the system was set up by a then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams—a Republican.

An analysis of voting patterns conducted by the Brennan Center, a legal nonprofit housed at New York University's law school, found that that the people most likely to vote by mail in 2016 were white voters over the age of 65—a key Trump demographic.

It's true that some states are likely to be overwhelmed by the number of absentee ballots cast this year—a month after its primary election, New York is still counting votes cast by mail—but Trump's attempt to delegitimize mail-in voting is likely only hurting him and his party. Indeed, in June, Politico reported that registered Democrats in Florida had requested roughly 300,000 more absentee ballots than registered Republicans—a gap that the state's Democratic Party chairman attributed to Trump's success at tamping down Republican enthusiasm for voting by mail.

The simplest explanation for Trump's bizarre tweet on Thursday morning is that he's a deeply unpopular incumbent—as even he has recently admitted—who trails in the polls and doesn't see an easy way to turn things around. Calling to delay the election, even as he is also insisting that it is safe for schools to open, comes off as hypocritical, weak, and politically self-defeating.

It's always been obvious that Trump didn't care to learn about the actual limits or powers of the office he holds. If he had, he would already know how ridiculous this all sounds. He's making excuses for losing before the game is even over. It's not dictatorial. It's just kind of pathetic.

Yep. Pathetic it is.

 

[swordfish]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Despite what he suggested in a Thursday morning tweet, President Donald Trump does not have the authority to cancel or postpone the 2020 general election.

Where in his tweet did he actually "suggest" he would have this authority?

[Muda69]

18 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Where in his tweet did he actually "suggest" he would have this authority?

Quote

Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???