Rep. IIhan Omar (D., Minn.) lashed out at Hennepin County District Judge Jamie Anderson for blocking a ballot measure that would replace with Minneapolis Police Department with a new department of public safety. Omar alleged that Anderson was part of a “network” working to frustrate “progress.” Underlying this dispute is an interesting question of the court’s role on the ballot question and, while she is wrong in her attack on the court, Omar may have a legitimate objection if the ballot question is blocked despite revisions.
I have previously noted how Democrats are now increasingly attacking judges in the same way that former president Donald Trump did during his term. I have criticized both sides for such attacks.
In a town hall meeting on Tuesday in Minneapolis, Omar said that powerful figures were conspiring to spend big money and use their influence to block such measures:
“The leaders who are opposed to progress in this city are not nameless or faceless. Using your network to obstruct the kind of progress so many people in this city want and were looking forward to is not something that should go unnoticed…This ballot measure should be on the ballot. As you can tell, I’m pretty upset about it..
“We have people pouring in so much money to make us enslaved to a charter that the majority of us [oppose]. This is the opposite of what democracy should produce. The people had a vision for what they wanted, and there’s a judge, there’s a mayor, there is a police chief, and their monied friends who are telling us we can’t have a city that is flexible to our needs and to our demands. How else are we supposed to make progress if we can’t do that?”
The comments were directed first and foremost against Hennepin County District Judge Jamie Anderson on Tuesday who struck down Question 2 on the Minneapolis ballot for the Nov. 2 election after concluding that the wording was “unreasonable and misleading.”
The measure would replace the police department and allow the creation of a public safety alternative, “including licensed peace officers if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the department.”
Anderson has repeatedly rejected language for the ballot. She held that “the Court finds that the Current Ballot Language is vague, ambiguous and incapable of implementation, and is insufficient to identify the amendment clearly.”
Here is the latest version approved by the city council:
Department of Public Safety
Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot?
Explanatory Note:
This amendment would create a Department of Public Safety combining public safety functions through a comprehensive public health approach to be determined by the Mayor and Council. The department would be led by a Commissioner nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The Police Department, and its chief, would be removed from the City Charter. The Public Safety Department could include police officers, but the minimum funding requirement would be eliminated.
Even on the third attempt, it is still poorly crafted. However, I am not sure it is so confusing as to be blocked by the court. It clearly conveys that the replacement of the department and does acknowledge that the city may or may not include police officers. It also clearly states that it would reduce the power of the mayor.
While I do not agree with Omar’s attack on the court, she may have a point in objecting to the judicial block on the ballot question. This would seem an issue where the court should only act to block a political vote when the voters would be misled or misinformed. This is hardly the model of clarity but it does convey the essence of the proposal. There is a type of countermajoritarian danger in courts being too aggressive in blocking ballot questions.
The measure is an outgrowth of the local “defund the police” movement. Despite the criticism of the movement by many of us, the voters have a right to make such judgments on their own public safety and protection.
Minnesota social workers, go spend an afternoon observing cop body cam video footage of how quickly encounters turn violent. That’s going to be you, so you should take notes.
Good luck when you are directed to deal with domestic violence disputes, or an addict threatening the public. Don’t forget to buy puncture resistant gloves, because addicts tend to have dirty needles. You might want to take a self defense course, too. Those domestic violence calls turn violent quickly.
I suppose you will be security monitors rather than security guards.
Karen,
“ Minnesota social workers, go spend an afternoon observing cop body cam video footage of how quickly encounters turn violent. That’s going to be you, so you should take notes.”
Wow, the ignorance runs deep in this thread. Social workers don’t dress up in intimidating uniforms and project an aggressive attitude. Most cops don’t have the proper training to de-escalate. The majority of the time it is when the police show up that the situation escalates. Encounters turn violent when policemen officers, especially bad ones, escalate situations due to aggressive tactics.
There’s a lot to be said about proper recognition of a situation instead of mindlessly following procedures.
Svelaz, you’re right that social workers don’t project an aggressive attitude. Do you think it’s safe to send a social worker to a domestic violence call, the type of call that most often turns violent?
Would you tell a 55 year old social worker lady to go knock on the door when she hears screaming and yelling? Would she feel safe getting in the middle of a fight where the man is threatening his wife?
You surely are aware that when a woman is murdered, the killer is statistically most likely to be a man she’d been with. This is otherwise known as domestic violence. Do you think the social worker lady is going to be safe because she doesn’t look scary? The woman the man is threatening isn’t scary to him, either. That’s why he’s threatening to beat her.
If it does turn violent, what’s the social worker lady going to do? Shake her finger at him?
Every time this bananas idea comes up, I think of those two poor boys were who chopped to pieces by his father with the social worker helplessly knocking on the door outside, unwilling to break in and help them. She just stood there and cried as two young children were killed by their ax murderer father. If it had been a cop, he could have broken down the door and shot center mass, hopefully soon enough to save one or both boys.
You know what a social worker does when a call gets violent? They cry. They run away. They stand there helplessly. When it gets violent, it’s past the point of counseling.
I’ve actually had a violent stalker. I’m alive today basically because he let me live. Even after that, I wasn’t safe. The thought of a social worker helping me in my moment of panicked need is so ludicrous. I wish there’d been a cop there to protect me, not some middle aged social worker. My very first gun was a present from a cop I dated who read about what happened.
My opposition to this isn’t political. It’s from the perspective of a survivor. I support sending someone to counseling when they’re calmed down, or adding hostage negotiation to law enforcement training. But sending a social worker instead of a cop is very dangerous to people in situations like I experienced. Do not leave us women helpless and take police response away.
I would think it would be a major OSHA violation to send social workers into inherently dangerous situations for which they are totally not equipped.
Progress for whom? The rapers, murderers, and pillagers decimating Blue cities in the wake of the defund the police craze? These elites and politicians who push the move to defund the police and oppose the 2nd Amendment have armed security. They aren’t taking away their own security; they are removing your security.
They are elites. They are entitled to a level of safety that you are not. They are entitled to party with 600 friends in Martha’s Vineyard, while you are not allowed to have a backyard BBQ with extended family. They have the special privilege of dining at the French Laundry with their friends, while your restaurant is closed and you go bankrupt. They keep their own wineries open for wine tasting, but you can’t get a beer at a bar. They wear custom made couture at $35,000 a head galas, without a mask, while lecturing us that we should pay higher taxes, wear a mask, and never see each other. These people become wealthy in so-called public service, while they squeeze businesses and individuals to death with taxes.
They do so love their special privileges.
Privilege doesn’t come in the skin. It comes with politics that makes people rich. Politicians, Hollywood, Big Tech, Academia – they are the elites who believe they should run everything, and have more privileges than anyone else. Latina AOC is privileged to another stratosphere when compared with your average white woman in rural Appalachia.
They are the patrician ruling class. We’re the plebeians.
Ilhan Omar is incapable of telling the truth. This amendment that she calls “progressive” is actually a devious way to get around the will of the people and slowly starve the Minneapolis police of funds until it self-destructs. That “if necessary” clause is very telling, because Omar and the city council (which will be in charge of the police if this passes) have made their position clear — the police are not necessary. The black community in north Minneapolis has made it clear that they do not want to either defund or abolish the police, so Omar is pushing for something they reject, and she’s doing it in the name of “racial justice.” The money for this campaign came from out-of-state sources and George Soros’ foundations, not from the people in Minneapolis. Perhaps this campaign is the test case for the globalists who want to federalize all state functions, from voting to police to healthcare. If this ballot issue passes, which I don’t think it will, then we can expect to see Democratic-run cities all over the country pushing the same. Eliminating the local police is a key part of the Democratic federalization agenda, which is also a very totalitarian agenda.
So what if the locals want to eliminate the City police. They still have the Sheriff, State and Federal law enforcement to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.
What I beleive the city will find out is that the Sheriff’s department is not aligned with the Mayors or city counsel political ambitions. In other words they will lose local control over crime and punishment.
Giocon1 – and yet she won reelection. There are people who complain about public policy, yet they keep voting for the people who make that public policy. The people of Minneapolis cannot rely on judges to thwart Ilan Omar’s attempts to ruin their neighborhoods and make them worse than third world countries.
They must connect their vote with the result. If they don’t like the result, they have to vote differently. The tragedy is for those who did not vote for her, or any of this far Left dystopian nonsense. They’re stuck with the results the majority gives them. It will become Escape From Minneapolis.
We need to stand back and let Ilan Omar show the people she represents exactly what she’s capable of.
I wonder how many people who protested against systemic racism last year voted to re-elect the same people who were perpetuating it?
So, hereby one may read, the full decision of the judge:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21062457/21-11047-order-on-petition-to-correct-ballot.pdf
Just include in the referendum (if approved) the requirement for measurables that if met would return to the previous charter.
What is a “Comprehensive public health approach,” to public safety?i suppose I could google it and I have my suspicions, but this language is utterly incomprehensible. Is it referring to physical health, as in vaccines, or is it referring to mental health, as in straight jackets instead of bullets?
JJS in AZ: According to the city council, it refers to transferring money from the police to mental health and other programs that they claim — without showing any concrete evidence — prevents crime. It also refers to expanding social services, again based on the claim they prevent crime. The city council never did any impact studies, nor did it ever submit any research to back up their assumptions. This amendment is pure ideology, and not at all in line with what the people living in the most crime-ridden areas of the city have been asking for.
What is a “Comprehensive public health approach,” to public safety?
Are you starting to understand the motivation behind the over the top covid protocols? And… ignoring the fact those protocols do not produce results? Why the CDC has been wanting to track gun deaths?
The leftists are laying the ground work to use “health emergency” as a way to override the rights of all Americans
Hell of issue.
And first, one must understand, a judge has other perception or understanding of one text, let alone, legal text. That is why, it is very critical to read reasoning attentively. Now, and in accordance, we couldn’t understand at first place, what are the standards of review here. All we could understand, is that in the eyes of the judge, it is misleading and unreasonable. Yet:
There is difference for example, between details, let alone technical details which are misleading, and:
Such level of potential misconception, that would create, fundamental misleading or misunderstanding.
All this, because of lack of understanding of the reasoning, or lack of clear and transparent standards of review ( by judge in that case).
Not to forget finally, even if one law, provision, constitution are well phrased, there are always problems of interpretations. So, surly such amendment, that should be decided, understood and prevailed by laymen.
But, I shall look further for more clear reasoning given by the judge if there are some more.
Thanks
This stems from an earlier judicial finding that Minneapolis was violating the city charter that required a minimum $amount (%of tax revenue?) be spent on policing.
That threw legal sand in the gears of the “defund” crowd.
I don’t care. We went up there once or twice a year, but I have no intention going until they have several years under their belt of reasonable self governance. Social workers are low paid, and not very motivated. I find it impossible to believe social workers are going in to diffuse domestic abuse calls at 2:30 am, without armed backup. But the citizens are voting, let them vote. I assume the, de-fund, crowd thinks this process is like Chemo. You have to almost kill the city to save it. Good luck, Its your choice.
Not sure what the city planners are planning. Empty office space is going to turn these cities into ghost towns.
And when they move to escape the dystopia they created out of their Deep Blue cities, they will relocate to better quality of life, safer red states. And they will keep voting just the same. Low information voters just never learn. They don’t want to learn. Exhibit A is the angry resistant to facts and contrary opinions on display daily here on the blog. It spreads like locusts or blight. Consume. Destroy. Move on. Repeat.
If she married her brother to obtain a green card how is she able to run for office? Better yet why hasn’t she been deported?
Better yet why hasn’t she been deported?
You think the problem is Omar?
Not all the refugees that re-elected her?
If you think “she married her brother to obtain a green card,” you’re a conspiracy theorist.
She identified the man as her brother much earlier. Then she married the man she called her brother. Omar is on on the conspirac?
Go over two Powerline they have been covering this since she ran for office the 1st time. The have the trail of public statements.
I’m surprised she didn’t go to Utah.
Only a leftist would complain about “big money” as their side garners ten times what their opponents manage to raise.
Hey EB or Natacha, please tell us about the last time a Republican outspent a Democrat.
I almost always agree with the good Professor, but the language of this ballot measure is a word salad with an ambiguity dressing. The language in the measure is pure leftists garbage that is usually only heard in the halls of our universities and private high schools. This measure signifies nothing, solves nothing, means nothing and can never be implemented. As the left said when the details of the Green New Deal first emerged, “it is just aspirational”, as was proven when the non-binding resolution on it was voted down by EVERYONE. Well “aspirational” has no place on a ballot.
The trump administration ballooned the deficit by 7 trillion dollars after Obama had shrunk it once he pulled the country out of the great recession. Please become educated before popping off and showing us your low information side, hullbobby.
eb
Please become educated before popping off and showing us your low information side, hullbobby.
Says the man wildly off topic.
Please repeat the question hullbobby sent my way.
eb
The TOPIC EB…the TOPIC at hand. What does Trump have to do with a ballot measure on the police in MN? Wow, this guy just doesn’t get it.
hullbobby — you f widget — you directed a query toward me about when the last time repubs outspent dems. I told you. Probably best to pull your head out of your ass.
eb
iowan 2
Anonymous eb is a waste of time.
He hits the refresh button on his browser dozens of times a day, hoping against hope that somebody somewhere has responded to him.
Anonymous eb writes like an old man, otherwise I would think that he is a pajama boy living in his mother’s basement.
Given the amount of time eb spends on this blog, we have a pretty good idea how pathetic his life is.
Unfortunately, I felt compelled to reply to eb this 1 time to set the record straight
As I’ve said to you before, and if you read my posts (which you obviously do because they go up your rather cavernous ass so hard), you’d see I originally always respond to Turley. When trolls such as yourself respond to those posts with utter bs if the mood strikes and I have some spare moments, I’ll jump in detail how deluded and idiotic your responses are. Mostly just to amuse myself because you’re such a cretin,
eb
You’re comparing conflating total U.S. debt with yearly budget deficits. Total debt went up every year from 2000-2020. Budget deficit is yearly shortfall between Government spending and revenue.and rises and falls year by year depending on numerous factors including spending, revenues, moving items off-budget etc.
Obama added about $10 trillion to debt during his term, which constituted a doubling of the total U.S. debt
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2020
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2020 26,945,391,194,615.15
09/30/2019 22,719,401,753,433.78
09/30/2018 21,516,058,183,180.23
09/30/2017 20,244,900,016,053.51
09/30/2016 19,573,444,713,936.79
09/30/2015 18,150,617,666,484.33
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
The conflation is on your end, btw. Debt always rises, that’s why there votes to increase the debt ceiling rather often. I cited deficits in my post because I meant, well, deficits. Thanks for posting the debt gradation though, it does prove that debt is always rising. Now to be fair to me you’d post the deficit stats year by year and you’d see some very interesting fluctuations…, namely in this case that Obama, after his first two years in office did a good job at reeling deficits in — and, of course, that Trump ballooned them behind his tax cuts for the upper income brackets.
eb
Debt doesn’t always rise. During the Clinton Admin after GOP took control of Congress there were several years of government surpluses which lowered the total debt. After Bush (the idiot son) took office he resumed the practice of running up budget deficits and the Total Debt. A practice which continues by both sides to this day and probably until the U.S. finally collapses under the weight of it.
Coupled with that awesome comment by Cheney where he maintained debt doesn’t matter. While both sides may not be as cognizant as the Clinton administration was of it, Repubs are creating the quite the track record of leaving the country in steaming economic wreckage in the wake of their control of the executive branch.
eb
Figures don’t lie but liars sure can figure…. Clinton cooked the books. No fn surplus when he was in office.
But just staying with the topic of debt, reading your own stats here, you’d see that in the ever increasing debt tally of the U.S. that Obama averaged in the 4.5 trillion range per term while Trump nearly doubled that.
eb
Obama shrank the deficit!
I read the amendments to the language, and still find it much too vague and ambiguous. In this case the Judge was correct and Prof. Turley, in my opinion is wrong.
Whenever anyone disagrees with the squad members, they are deemed to be conspirators. And, if one were to check where most of the big money donors are putting their money, it is on the agenda pushed by the squad.
The fact that she and her fellow squad members are in the U.S. Congress, is possibly the real conspiracy.
You think it’s a conspiracy that some congressional districts elect people you disapprove of?
Yes. Project Veritas caught people in her district on video boasting of voter fraud and displaying wads of money to be used for bribes. Somehow that never made it on the news and never made it into the Richard Jewell Building in DC.
Make Minneapolis Somalia?
Toilets would be outlawed.
“and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary”
I love that part.
You might get police, you might get finger cymbaled chanting monks.
Or, conversely, trump tried to run a coup and barely failed only due to an informal 25th amendment run by the military. So I guess there’s that.
eb
Anonymous,
“Trump tried to run a coup?” The FBI investigation said you are wrong. The “informal 25th amendment run by the military,” was the real attempted coup.
You are nonsensical and just as silly as Pelosi is.
Actually to save you from lying to yourself as much as you’re lying to us, what the FBI said was that there were only small connections between the mob of rioters on January 6th to Roger Stone and/or Alex Jones. They didn’t delve into the connections between individual militias, etc.
Of course, that’s looking at January 6th in isolation as if it was the only treasonous act of trump and his administration post election, when in reality the 6th was just one action to overthrow a dually elected incoming administration. There was the election tampering in the swing states. The open fraud perpetrated by trump’s lawyers, trump’s tampering with the defense department — all part of a coordinated effort by trump to overthrow election results. And herein lies the coup. And this is what Milley and the generals were in reaction against….
This in addition to all the personal graft trump ran in office should land him in prison. We’ll see if it happens. There is, quite rightly, hesitance to jail a former sitting president…, but trump has sailed past the conditions appropriate for that hesitance. He deserves a jail cell.
eb
eb — Wow, sounds like you’re sitting on a pile of incontrovertible evidence. Why not contact the DOJ and put the country out of its misery of having to listen to endless leftist conspiracy theories. Resolve it once and for all. BTW, did you leave out the Russia collusion charges — Oh, wait, that was a hoax also.
LMAO a the rubes who vote for hypocrites like Omar. Along with her fellow ‘Squad’ members she screams to remove police protection for the common folk while using campaign funds for private security; champions Socialism while funnelling donations thru her husband’s firm and into her own bank account; screams about BLM and Social Justice while her foreign policy rants mysteriously focus on non-contextual attacks on Israel & Western democracies but is strangely silent about the longer/larger Arab/Islamic slave trade which is still holding Black Africans in bondage in Mali, Mauritania, the Sudan and,in anger againt Gaddafi’s use of Chad soldiers for security, Libya over the past decade+.
Lol. And people accuse me of going off topic.
eb
Actually to save you from lying to yourself as much as you’re lying to us, what the FBI said was that there were only small connections between the mob of rioters on January 6th to Roger Stone and/or Alex Jones.
You keep saying that, it is meaningless. Neither are in the administration.
Plus, after listening to yesterday’s Senate hearings, evidence is now snowballing, the FBI is full of posers, slackers, and criminals. It goes further back than Mueller and the investigation of Whitey Bulger. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FBI+ruined+the+investigation+of+Whitey+bulger&ia=web, How about Richard Jewel?.
The plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan, planned and executed by a group of men, the majority of which were FBI paid informants, and FBI agents. Of Course Crossfire Hurricane, was never supported by a single shred of evidence. We know this because FBI letters to FBI brass dated 1/4/2017 declared they have no derogatory information to continue the Counter Intelligence investigation. The never ever considered a single crime
Back to yesterdays hearing, the FBI did nothing with statements they got from the victims for more that a year. Giving the pedophile license to sexually assault and additional 100 girls. Not done with their corrupt actions, they lied to FBI superiors and the Inspector General. After all of this has been proven, the Attorney General has refused to prosecute a single agent, supervisor, or residence of the 7th floor.
But all of that is nothing compared to Roger Stone and Alex Jones…according to you.
Impressive foray into mental illness and putting words in my mouth.
eb
you keep using the FBI to support your delusions. The FBI is full of self serving liars, and political operatives.
I never put words in you mouth. I impeached your source.
Now Durham has picked a piece of low hanging fruit and indicted a lawyer that lied to the FBI.
Maybe you can explain why the DoJ failed to follow their own protocol and did not do an early morning raid on his private residence with helicopters and agents armed with assault rifles.
Both this lawyer and Stone are exactly the same. Private Citizens indicted for lying to FBI during an investigation.
This is the Nation you desire. Those in the unaccountable bureaucracy running roughshod over citizens rights. The FBI ignoring the constitution. You are just fine with that as long as the icky people are the ones abused.
EB is incapable of commenting on the issue at hand and therefore he does a Newsome and just talks about Trump.
What is an “informal 25th Amendment”?
When your handpicked JCOS is convinced enough of your mental decline as president he safeguards the system so you can’t start a nuclear war by yourself. In other words, what Milley did in reaction to Trump’s coup attempt.
(Schlessinger did it to Nixon, too)
eb
A president can’t start a nuclear war all by himself. That’s not how it works. That’s not even how the nuclear codes are even accessed, which takes two people.
If Milley actually believed that a madman was in office (like, for instance, the clear dementia of Joe Biden), then the Constitutional remedy is not to call the military of a hostile nation and inform them that he would give advance notice of any military action which, again, can’t occur on a whim. The word for that is treason, especially as China has made nuclear threats against the US. The remedy is to call an emergency Cabinet meeting, and follow the Constitutional procedure for incapacity.
Joe Biden is showing obvious cognitive decline. He refuses to take a cognitive function test, or share information about his health. He can’t remember where he is, and he keeps making up stories that are easily disproven, like his first job offer was from Boise Cascade, or he went to black churches, or he got arrested with Nelson Mandela. Yet we’re not worried that he’ll wake up one day, get confused over what decade it is, think it’s WWII, and call in a nuclear attack on Hiroshima, because no President can commit nuclear war all by himself. That’s a myth.
Absolutely true, Karen…, from a sheer tactical point of view, there have to be multiple check ins on launch codes. Where Milley was concerned, since trump was rearranging the top of the defense dept. post election, was in trump’s being able to find someone to go with a trump launch plan as a wag the dog scenario. It’s why Milley went through all the top generals and had them commit to not doing just that.
What you insight also lacks is that are many ways to get in wars. The truth is, the military was watching trump from the moment he entered office because they didn’t trust him. They thought his rhetoric around North Korea could very well get us into a war with them, so they put safeguards there as well. Trump’s popping off was entirely capable of getting a first strike sent our way. And the military knew they had to rank trump at the top of the list of primary threats to the U.S. on a couple of fronts, his popping off at the mouth, and his deference to Vlad Putin as a given.
eb
The truth is, the military was watching trump from the moment he entered office because they didn’t trust him. “from the moment he entered office” Translated, ‘we don’t like the outcome of the election so we are going to invalidate the election.’
Even you admit there was a planned military coupe. In direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America.
There was a planned coup…, by trump. I spell coup without an ‘e’ as well because of my appreciation of a fine car.
eb
One of Trump’s big problems was his lack of diplomacy, i.e, his constant trash talking. For example, the first time the new president met with the chiefs of staff, he mean-mouthed them roundly, saying that they were a bunch of idiots who can’t win wars any more (or something to that effect). Of course, in an ideal world, the military advisors could have taken that reprimand as a goad to improve, but in the swamp of D.C. politics, they decided among themselves to undermine Trump’s agendas whenever possible. Milley’s (alleged) treasonous actions are simply the most blatant example (that we know of), but Trump’s peace overtures to N. Korea, Russia, etc. were generally opposed by the top brass, who have their lucrative post-retirement careers with the arms industry etc. to consider. Mustn’t stop those money-making endless wars…
EB:
Do you realize that your saying that Trump was going to pop off and create a major war is ludicrous? Trump turned out to be the peacemaking president. He negotiated 4 Middle East Peace Deals. He didn’t start any new wars at all. Trump was criticized for being too conciliatory with North Korea.
Just because he liked to engage in Twitter Wars didn’t mean he’d be prone to start actual wars.
Once again, the allegation that he’d start wars on a whim was proven untrue.
Once again, if Milley had concerns about Trump, there was a Constitutional remedy. There is NO EXCUSE for a military general promising to provide the general of a hostile nation advanced notice of our military efforts. There is a case to be made that this meets the standard of treason.
Karen,
Clearly you don’t understand how an informal</b 25th amendment is to be executed, as *ahem* defined in our constitution.
It states unequivocally that should any member of the government feel that the President is unable to fully execute the powers of the office, that the concerned party or parties shall informally consume the powers of the office in such a manner as to prevent the President from doing anything stupid, and they shall retain these powers until the House of Representatives can manufacture articles of impeachment and successfully prosecute them in the Senate, or until the President is voted out of office. In the event of a lame duck President, those consumed powers will remain in effect until a new President, that you trust will do the bidding of the shadow government, is inaugurated.
It’s all spelled out right here, you simply have to be smart enough to read between the lines.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
Or this:
But as is the rule of the elites, they are never held to the same standards as those to which they incessantly preach. His actions to join the political fray as a one-man envoy between the United States and China prove it. The alleged calls to the Chinese reveal he thinks his own freelance diplomacy better serves American interests than the civilian leadership elected through democratic means.
Milley and the rest of his above-reproach allies in the military have too long abused the trust of the last institution that was seen as truly representative of the American spirit: an apolitical entity united in one mission to defend America and her allies. They see themselves as heroes of their own story, saving the American people from themselves and offering their own pompous self-importance as an example of why they should never be questioned or held to any standard of accountability. In reality, they’re subverting the very democracy they’re purporting to save, and destroying the military along with it.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/16/mark-milley-and-his-ilk-are-disgracing-the-u-s-military-to-the-entire-world/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_federalist_daily_briefing_2021_09_16&utm_term=2021-09-16
When your handpicked JCOS is convinced enough of your mental decline
You would follow your 40 years of military training, and alert you superior in the chain of command. For the General, that would be the Secretary of Defense. Failing to do that will get you court martialed
Which clearly he did. That and an SOP meeting with his Chinese counterpart during a time of intense chaos in American politics — in the presence of others — will get you gullible trumper for a thousand, Alex.
eb
eb — not according to the FBI. But if you have some secret source that proves otherwise, please share.
“not according to the FBI”
Please do share this statement from the FBI itself.
I think they’re trying to do too many things in one referendum and that IS confusing to the common voter. As we have seen time and time again in political narratives that have been rolled over into confusingly worded referendums, these kinds of things have legal loopholes that will not be noticed by the common voter and those loopholes can have unintended consequences; I’ve seen this loophole issue happen multiple times in the small town where I live and the loopholes I’ve seen ended up costing the local taxpayers millions of dollars that they did not vote to spend.
Politicians are trying to pull the political wool over the eyes of the voting public all the time with their rhetoric and narratives that hide the details and it needs to stop!
Minneapolis needs to simplify this and maybe even break it up into a few very simple multiple referendums so the common voter is completely clear as to what they’re voting for.
That said; the way the political left in general, and specifically irrational social justice warriors like Rep. IIhan Omar, have been out there constantly trying to control the narrative since 2008 with their unethical innuendo, propaganda and gaslighting, I have gotten to the point that I don’t trust any narrative that comes out of the political left and their lapdog media outlets. These people are lying to the public every day.
The political right has been learning the tactics of the political left over the last 10+ years and it seems to me that many Republicans are now rationalizing the usage of the lefts tactics with a tit-for-tat retaliation rationalization that I can’t condone.
I agree. I call out my friend on the right or any side, when they rationalize unethical tactics and word play by pointing to the other side. I want those I agree with to stand apart. I want us (whoever “us” is) to trust that a clear, accurate representation of the point or argument is enough.
Steve…I believe the vagueness is deliberate. The city council and Omar have always been vocally outspoken about abolishing the police, even though key communities in Minneapolis are opposed to it. The measure probably won’t pass even as written. This city council is a clumsy group of ideologues who only listen to their activist constituents. But if liberals in the city continue to vote for an extremist council and representative, sooner or later the police will either be abolished, or wither away due to resignations.
Vagueness is a foundational element of the measure. Specificity is the last thing the writers want….. the point is to eliminate the police department, not what it’s replaced with.
It is what it is. It’s not up to the judge to protect the electorate from being able to identify BS.
It should come as no surprise that this “defund” in the Twin Cities, like in all metro areas, is spearheaded by whites and blacks who don’t live in the inner city. Poor black people know, better than anyone, that they will be the victims of this cruel boondoggle.
White liberals are the biggest problem this country has.
We moved to the Twin Cities 5 years ago, just in time to watch it implode.
Let the people of Minneapolis decide.
Too often judges and bureaucrats will step in to “protect” us and in the process, frustrate initiatives.
Democracy is messy, if citizens vote for a bad initiative, well they got what they wanted – good and hard.
I agree with you. Democrats have long relied on, in their own words, “the stupidity of the American public.” All you have to do is research the outcome of their policies to know it’s garbage.
These politicians rely on voters finding the current state of affairs totally inexplicable.
If the people of Minnesota are dumb enough to vote away their police force, then unfortunately they will get what they want. Those who don’t vote for such a measure will have to Escape from Minneapolis.
Sometimes it takes show and tell to make people understand why a theory won’t work. Put it into practice, and then observe the catastrophe. Ilan Omar is eager to show what she can do. Let’s all stand back and let her do it. If your opponent is dead set on destroying herself, you don’t stand in her way.
Someone in the beltway had to have written that amendment. I have to agree with the judge on this one- too vague