We recently discussed a federal court upholding the Georgia election law as constitutional, rejecting challenges based on voter suppression by a group associated with Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. President Biden has denounced pre-2020 and post-2020 changes to the state election laws as not just “Jim Crow on steroids” but “Jim Eagle,” an awkward effort to suggest something more scary than Jim Crow. However, some of us pointed out that provisions criticized by the President are found in many blue states, including his own state of Delaware. Now, the Delaware Supreme Court has rejected a Democratic universal mail-in voting law as unconstitutional.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a state law enacting universal mail-in voting violated the state’s constitution. At issue was the Vote-by-Mail statute under which Democrats sought to expand the categories of absentee voters. However, Article V, Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution is explicit on those categories. The provision states with specificity the grounds for such absentee voting:
§4A. General laws for absentee voting.
Section 4A. The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing that any qualified elector of this State, duly registered, who shall be unable to appear to cast his or her ballot at any general election at the regular polling place of the Election District in which he or she is registered, either because of being in the public service of the United States or of this State, or his or her spouse or dependents when residing with or accompanying him or her, because of the nature of his or her business or occupation, because of his or her sickness or physical disability, because of his or her absence from the district while on vacation, or because of the tenets or teachings of his or her religion, may cast a ballot at such general election to be counted in such election district.
The legislature decided to simply ignore the constitutional provision. It is a standard canon of construction that “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other” (“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”).
President Biden’s claims about the Georgia law have been refuted, including by the Washington Post. Indeed, not only has the President misrepresented the law but Delaware has some provisions more restrictive than Georgia’s law.
Now it appears that universal mail-in voting is barred in the state. Does that mean that “Jim Eagle” has landed in Delaware? No. The Supreme Court is clearly correct and the legislature knowingly violated the Constitution. Indeed, the Governor John Carney and Democratic sponsors were warned at the time that it was unconstitutional. If they want universal mail-in voting, they will have to change, not simply ignore, their constitution.
Arrests in an organized voter fraud organization that harvested ballots from vulnerable elderly in nursing homes. When anyone says voter fraud never happens, or that it’s nearly impossible to vote fraudulently via mail in ballots, they are either lying, misinformed, or willfully blind.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/work-ag-paxtons-election-fraud-unit-results-arrests-4-members-organized-voter-fraud-ring-north-fort
Voter fraud that entails gathering blank mail in ballots sent to the elderly in nursing homes, and filing them out without their knowledge, against their wishes, or while they are totally incapacitated with dementia, is very difficult to discover under current laws. The elderly patient, or their designee, would have to go online to see if they voted, and then file a complaint. When my Grandma was slowly dying, by inches, from Alzheimer’s, the last thing on my mind was to verify that no one was committing voter fraud by stealing her vote.
In a lucky stroke, constable Tyron Davis, was found guilty of voter fraud. He was discovered because county election officials noticed so many ballots with similar handwriting, submitted together, but without a signature under the “assistant” line. If the votes had been mixed up instead of submitted all together, officials wouldn’t have noticed the handwriting similarity. If Davis had signed a fabricated name, or a variety of fabricated names, under “assistant”, it would never have been discovered. When interviewed, the nursing home patients who did not have dementia, said they had no idea what Davis had them sign.
It is so very easy to commit voter fraud in nursing homes, and so difficult to detect. The risk of developing dementia is quite high after age 65. Many Americans are in nursing homes and hospice. To Machiavellian political activists and bad actors, they’re ripe for the picking.
https://texasscorecard.com/local/democrat-constable-convicted-voter-fraud-ellis-county/
Tyron Davis was just one man. There is currently an investigation underway on organized ballot harvesting.
I receive mail in ballots for the previous owners of my house, which I bought over a decade ago. One of them passed away prior to that.
I just shred them, as return to sender didn’t work.
How many people are getting similar erroneous mail in ballots, who engage in voter fraud? How many have figured out how to do this in a larger scale?
Fraud happens frequently because a certain percentage of the 325 million people who live in the US are unethical. This is why banks verify identity, as do pharmacies when you buy cough syrup. This is why you have to show ID to get into a Democrat primary.
Ozzie Meyers was recently found guilty of voter fraud to benefit Democrats. Yet we’re supposed to believe it’s sedition for Republicans to question election integrity or seek more security for the voting process. Voting fraud is often undetected. When Democrats block auditing voter rolls, we don’t know who’s on there, and who’s voting, who shouldn’t be. They block investigations, and then proclaim that the rarity of convictions means voter fraud doesn’t exist. They block attempts to protect the elderly in nursing homes from having staff or activists fill out their ballots, against their wishes, or in the worst cases, while they lie there with dementia. Then they claim such elder abuse doesn’t exist.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-sentenced-30-months-prison
Of course vote by mail ballots should have to be requested by the voter. Of course they should have to answer security questions or otherwise prove their identity. Some countries, like Japan, are quite strict about this. Why? Because voting by mail is notoriously conducive to fraud.
John B. Say. Trump IS cash poor. He deliberately inflates the value of his properties just as he inflates the numbers of attendees at his rallies. It’s part of the pattern of trump lying to appease his ego and his “image” of being grander than he really is. It’s not hard to infer from reports and court cases against him. Trump is a prolific liar. Just by that alone it’s easy to infer that most of what he says is inflated. Compulsive liars, especially narcissistic ones, have that tendency.
He DOES have problems getting excellent lawyers. It’s a well known problem. That is why his current crop of lawyers are so incompetent and inept. His only saving grace is the one competent lawyer that did agree to work with him demanded he be paid in advance. Kise is currently being sidelined because his actual competent advice is being ignored and trump seems intent on digging deeper into the hole he has made for himself.
I’m not admitting anything, Don’t put words into my mouth. Trump is the only one who can bankrupt himself. His valuation shenanigans are catching up to him and it is by his own selfish ego that he is very likely to wind up in bankruptcy than by the “left”.
“I can not make sense of those on the left. According to you it is protected free speech and protest, to bang on the doors of the supreme court, to stalk them to their homes. to camp in front of buildings on wall street, to fire bomb federal courthouses, in portland, to burn churches near the white house, to throw rocks at park police, to try to breakdown the white house security fence, to fire bomb pro-life clinics.
But it is crime warranting 10 years in prison to sit in at an abortion clinic, or to push away someone who is attacking your son.”
You’re over exaggerating the problem here. Banging on the doors of the Supreme Court is not protected speech nobody is saying that but you. To protest on a public sidewalk at their homes IS protected free speech. Even they justices themselves have asserted that right multiple times.
Camping in front of buildings in Wall Street CAN be deemed free speech it’s a legitimate protest. There’s a nuance in that one. Firebombing churches and courthouses is NOT free speech and nobody saying that but you. Violence is NOT free speech and your attempt to conflate the two differences is just you being deliberately disingenuous with the facts.
The crime in front of an abortion clinic is due to the fact that it involves physical contact, assault. Pushing away someone involves physical contact in a zone that falls under a federal law. People CAN still protest in those areas as as long as there is no violence, physical contact or blocking access to the clinic. As long as they’re sure on PUBLIC property they can hold signs, yell, chastise, coerce, pray, etc, But it is a crime when there is physical contact, violence, attempt to block access, impeding access, or issue death threats IS not free speech. That is why a 10 year possible sentence is allowed. Know your basics in law before you make ignorant comments about poor old ladies being prosecuted.
Svelaz:
The defendant Houck alleges that he and his son were in front of a Planned Parenthood, peacefully demonstrating and praying the rosary. One of the abortion escorts got in their faces, yelled obscenities, and was threatening them. Houck and his son walked away, but the man followed. He got in the face of the 12 year old boy and was acting in a threatening manner, so Houck pushed him away, defending his child. This incident occurred on video and in front of eye witnesses, so it’s not a he said, he said scenario. The man he pushed tried to press charges, but upon investigation, local law enforcement refused to prosecute. The allegations are that a Democrat-politically-motivated FBI has targeted a man who was cleared of wrongdoing by local law enforcement. One again, the Democrat activists in positions of power stand accused of abusing that authority to target conservatives.
It is not, actually, a crime to physically contact a man who is assaulting your child. Houck had no history of violence against abortion providers. He had a long habit of praying the rosary outside abortion clinics, where unborn children are killed. It moves a lot of Christians to pray.
This reminds me of the mild-mannered Christian cake baker, who refuses to bake cakes for Halloween, Satanic cakes, cakes that proclaim a man can actually become a woman, celebrating gay marriage, or anything else that violates his beliefs. Kind of like an artist who refuses to accept commissions to paint politicians, causes, or subject matter he doesn’t support. Democrat activists are so intolerant that they cannot accept that anyone, anywhere, might have the free will to oppose them, so they keep harassing the baker and dragging him through one expensive court case after another. It’s not about winning, it’s about breaking a Christian man, impoverishing him, and making sure he never wants to operate a business again. It’s Fascist.
Meanwhile, domestic terrorist group Jane’s Revenge keeps firebombing pro-life pregnancy crisis centers, yet the FBI hasn’t sent in dozens of agents with weapons drawn to find the instigators.
Apparently, pregnant women are only encouraged to get abortion counseling, and not that there are alternatives with less chance of regret.
Karen S.
‘ It is not, actually, a crime to physically contact a man who is assaulting your child. “
Houck was assaulted according to the law. Just because the was being verbally abusive just as anti-abortion protesters are allowed to be on the premises doesn’t make it an offense. Once physical contact was made by her she committed assault IN an area designated as federally protected from such actions. it’s literally the law. If Houck made contact first he would have been the one facing the charges. This is how the law works.
This is a bad case for the FBI.
Catholics – even those supporting abortion are not likely to look kindly on the DOJ.
This also feed the bad narrative the DOJ/FBI created going after the parent whose daughter was raped by a MTF trans in the girls bathroom.
This DOJ is violating NORMS all over the place – whether it is going after Trump or going after ordinary people.
Independents and even some democrats are sour on this.
It is blatantly wrong for DOJ/FBI to go after their political enemies – which Biden and Democrats are clearly doing.
But when they go further down the tree and start targeting supporters or just people who do not share the same political values
they risk losing nearly everyone.
Svelaz defense of this conduct is stupid.
Morality and common sense don’t enter the ideas that ooze out of Svelaz’s head. He has a singular path to what he perceives as victory, and to get there he will claim anything.
Trump could well be cash poor. That is irrelevant.
It is also likely deliberate and within his control.
At any time he wishes he can choose to
Liquidate an asset and turn it into cash.
Refinance an asset and turn equity into cash.
Borrow unsecured at higher interest given his stellar credit rating.
Nearly everyone investing in real estate is cash poor.
In fact nearly everyone investing in anything is cash poor.
Elon Musk does not have $44B in cash lying arround.
No person does.
Musk will have to borrow, bring in other investors, or sell something to complete his purchase of twitter.
pretty much all the wealthy are “cash poor”.
“ Trump could well be cash poor. That is irrelevant.
It is also likely deliberate and within his control.”
It is quite relevant because he’s more dependent on the value of his real estate to exaggerate his net worth. Since the is already being exposed as hugely overvaluing his real estate holdings and no american bank is willing to work with him because of his past bankruptcy filings and leaving banks holding the bag. No bank will be willing to refinance or loan out more money. If he is forced to sell his real estate holdings for more cash he will be doing so at fire sale prices.
Trump’s constant lawsuits and his well established reputation of not paying his bills is not going to help when it comes to taking out more loans. He can’t rely on Russian banks any more and foreign banks are not too keen to do business with him given his financial troubles and the current IRS problems he is facing with his valuation schemes.
All he has left is the MAGA fundraising and donations from fools and the gullible.
You make incredibly bizzare arguments.
You BOTH claim that Trump massively exaggerates – while simultaneously claiming that nearly everyone is fooled.
Here is Forbes current assessment of Trump’s net worth – Not Trump’s
It is based on Forbes valuation of his properties – Not Trump’s
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2022/09/27/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/?sh=21f43e514813
Regardless, we have been through this overvalue argument and it is both nonsense are false.
Anyone who is FORCED to sell ends up doing so at discount.
I do not know what the commercial real estate market Trend in NYC is at the moment.
I know that the property I bought in 2009 is now worth more than double what I paid for it.
I beleive property values are declining right now. If so, maybe it will only be worth double.
Why is it that you beleive Trump will be FORCED to sell ?
I forsee nothing that will FORCE me to sell my properties.
The economy can tank. so long as people need apartments I will be able to meet my expenses and debt service with some left over.
Why would Trump be different ?
I remember ranting at the idiots claiming that the decline in property values when the housing bubble collapsed would force people to go bankrupt.
Why – almost no one was FORCED to sell. Declines in property values STOP sales. They do not FORCE them.
Right now my due diligence business has dried up – because no one is selling real estate – not me not Trump.
There is no requirement that people refinance or sell their properties. Investors – like Trump and I sit out the bad times.
We do not sell when prices are low.
Though even now, Trump could with certainty sell any property he owns for more than he paid for it, for more than he told the banks it was worth.
Separately you claim Trump can not borrow money.
I would bet that since 2016 that he has refinanced atleast one property in his portfolio. Someone loaned him money.
CA, TX, NY have GDP greater than Russia. I am sure there are people or institutions with money willing to loan to Trump in one of those.
Russia is a global player for one and only one reason – they have more nukes than the rest of the world combined.
One of the obvious lessons to the world from the Ukraine War is that Russia has been credited with much more power than they actually have for a long time.
Absolutely Trump exagerates. Not news.
Lots of people come to his rallies. Just fewer than he claims.
During the 2020 election Biden could not get 100 people to show up.
That does not prove Trump actually won.
But it is strong evidence Biden has never been popular.
Trump claims his economy was the best ever.
His economy was mediocre. It was a full percentage weaker than the average for the 20th century.
His economy WAS the best we have seen in the 21st century. Bush Obama and Biden were worse.
Trumps constant exaggeration does not alter the fact that by nearly every criteria he was a better president than Bush, Obama and Biden.
I do not Think Trump was a particularly good president. Certainly not nearly as good as he thinks he was.
But the 21st century presidents have all been absymal, making him look good.
“ Lots of people come to his rallies. Just fewer than he claims.
During the 2020 election Biden could not get 100 people to show up.”
There was a pandemic in 2020. he didn’t show up because he was being pragmatic about not. Holding rallies in the middle of a pandemic.
Trump was not exaggerating, he was literally lying constantly. Treating that obvious fact with kids gloves as you do does not alter the fact that trump was an incessant liar. Trump still says he did not lose the election. He’s still telling his supporters he was robbed of the presidency. That is no exaggeration. He’s been lying about declassifying documents and the FBI planting evidence to declaring he turned over everything to NARA when clearly he did not.
Biden had campaign rallies in 2020. People did not show. They still do not.
That is not pragmatic.
Trump is still saying he did not lose the election.
And 52% of americans beleive that the election was not conducted fairly and that if it had been the outcome would be different.
Based on what I know – FACTS, I strongly suspect he is right.
It is reasonable though not provaeble to conclude that had the law been followed, had the press not lied about Biden and buried stories damaging to him, had their been normal levels of fraud, that Trump not only would have won, but he would have had an electoral landslide.
and possibly the popular vote.
You are free to disagree. I have lots of facts to back me up, but I can not prove what I am saying.
That said, if I am wrong you COULD have proved that – had you actually agreed to meaningful inquiry.
But you did not.
When you prevent others from trying to find the truth, you cede the right to claim to know what it is.
I have absolutely zero interest in anything you infer.
You have proven abysmally bad at evaluating directly observable facts.
Why would anyone think you would not be far worse at making inferences.
You make equally bad inferences even when you cannot refute the evidence right in front of you. The need to deny the facts in order to hold on to your opinion is property obvious. You’re no better than I, just worse.
“You make equally bad inferences even when you cannot refute the evidence right in front of you. The need to deny the facts in order to hold on to your opinion is property obvious. You’re no better than I, just worse.”
False and irrelevant.
Support you claims with FACTS
Since you claim to be able.
All or nearly all politicians are narcisits, and prone to exageration.
That is not new.
Trump has an incredible ego – nothing new. Nor unique among politicians.
I have no clue how you distinguish between lies and exagerations, or even if you do.
What Trump does NOT do is brag that things are going well when they are going badly.
The Fed is currently actively causing a recession. That is the painful price we must pay for the inflation that the Fed and our government has allowed.
Biden is busy FALSLY telling people the economy is great.
Telling people with jobs who are doing better than they were last year, that everything is fantastic, better than it ever was, is troubling.
Telling people who are losing their jobs or that are falling behind that everything is fanstastic, better than it ever was is EVIL.
“ What Trump does NOT do is brag that things are going well when they are going badly.”
That’s clearly a lie. Trump bragged constantly that things were going well when they were going badly. When COVID was spreading around he bragged it was not as bad as they claimed, It was.
He bragged about the economy being good when it wasn’t. Don’t lie for Trump when it’s obvious.
“ Biden is busy FALSLY telling people the economy is great.
Telling people with jobs who are doing better than they were last year, that everything is fantastic, better than it ever was, is troubling.”
Who is losing jobs? The unemployment rate is still at historic lows. There are not enough people to fill all the job openings and companies are struggling to KEEP workers because there is a glut of job openings everywhere. Paychecks have risen, but so has inflation. Inflation is going down and there is still a problem of how to fill all these jobs that open. Companies can’t find enough workers.
Covid
Trump 300K+ deaths in 11 months.
Biden 800K+ deaths in 22 months.
Can you name anyone who was right about anything ?
Can you name anything that another government did that by the evidence worked better ?
You, the left, democrats have LOST the fight over Covid.
I am tired of writing long detailed demonstrations of the myriads of errors that you have made.
The stupid censorship you have engaged in that deprived people of the truth for years
It is self evident at this point that you are incapable of learning obvious lessons of the real world.
Which means you and those like you are dangerous and should never never never be given any power over other in anything.
Trump exaggerated the economy.
He never ever said it was good when it was bad.
I would note that his exagerating his overall economic performance is a minor annoyance.
But his economic performance during Covid was stellar.
The US like nearly all the world saw the economy TANK as Covid took hold.
No one did any better than anyone else there. No one had a magic bullet.
But the US recovery when Trump – as he said he would do from the start rolled back restictive policies was never before equaled in US history.
And nowhere else in the world.
Even now Biden is benefiting from the fact that as bad as he has done economically – most of the world is worse off.
Because Biden inherited an economy that had weathered the first year of Covid far better than any other.
Biden started his presidency with the wind at his back. A gift from Trump.
He BLEW IT.
And that is more than about the economy.
He started with the most peaceful world in decades.
He started with excellent global us foreign policy.
He started with energy policy that made the entire world safer.
Pay attention.
The FED is deliberately causing a recession. We have already seen GDP losses.
Job growth is already declining. People are already laying people off and cutting back.
And we are just at the beginning.
There is no a person in this country that does not wish for otherwise.
It is absolutely inside of the FED’s power to avoid the recession and to stabalize the job market.
To protect those statistics you are bragging about
But doing so comes at a cost – high and probably increasing inflation.
The economy is going into decline. That is occuring DELIBERATELY.
It is happening because the alternative is WORSE.
It is absolutely insane for those like you or Biden to be LYING to people about the economy right now.
It is especially stupid to be LYING about things that not only do you KNOW are changing
But that we are DELIBERATELY changing
Because a recession is the lessor evil to extended high inflation.
I do not know exactly what the future brings. I do not know how bad this will get.
But I do know that the FASTER we get into the recession, the FASTER we get through it.
Pretending or trying to slow it down is both stupid and harmful.
The property valuations idiocy is a very dead horse. The only question is how quickly James loses and whether there are sanctions against her.
Currently she has a favorable idiot judge. But this is a huge loser case.
If there was an actual issue here – Deutche Bank would have foreclosed on him long ago.
And the tax claim is complete nonsense. I am not aware of a single municipality in the US that sets property values based on owners claims.
Tax assessments are fundimentally valuations made up by government using arcane government rules.
Next, the IRS litterally does not care how you value anything. It does not need to. the IRS does not tax wealth, it does not tax property.
It taxes income. When you sell a property you will be taxed based on the difference between what you bought it for, and what you are selling it for. Not what you claim it is worth.
The fact that those of you on the left are so stupid as to think there is an issue here display’s your incredible ignorance
of taxes,. economics, investment. real estate – the real world.
This is not even a close call.
“He DOES have problems getting excellent lawyers. It’s a well known problem.”
Again, you do not seem to live in the real world.
If you want you can look up the track record and CV of all of Trump’s lawyers – nearly all are significantly more qualified than those at DOJ or FBI.
But that is just the tip of things.
What legal Challenge to Trump has actually been won ?
Did you win the emoluments case ?
Did Mueller actually find anything ?
Absolutely Trump has lost a few issues – most of which are tactical, not strategic.
You think Trump sued to prevent Nadler or James from getting his taxes.
Have you ever considered that he sued so that when they leak them – which they are likely to do, THEY will be in contempt of court ?
Trump took taxes all the way to the supreme court.
There is zero doubt that he must provide them.
There is also zero doubt that those he provided them to must treat them as if they are TS/SCI documents.
At every single level of challenge Trump asserted they could not be trusted.
At every level those after his records promised courts they could.
Trump won against Stormy Daniels.
A few other cases he has settled for a small portion of claims.
People who have gone after Trump legally have ended up bankrupt.
Trump is doing fine.
Even your own arguments claim Trump screws people and uses the courts to get away with it.
You can not have it both ways.
He either has lawyers that win nearly all the time,
or he has not actually gotten away with the things you claim.
Regardless, he has walked out of it all a multi-billionaire.
You think Trump is in trouble over the MAL raid.
I think Trump rope-a-doped Biden into doing something stupid.
Remember Trump made all of this public.
Biden gave Trump another long round of free press.
Further Biden has been played by Trump.
As you say “it is well known” that Biden is roaming the whitehouse ranting and demanding that Garland go after Trump.
Trump has suckered Biden and Garland into stupidly doing so.
Come January 2023 you can be sure that congress will be busy teaching DOJ/WH/FBI about the 4th amendment.
They will be doing so over investigations into parents objecting to the education school boards are forcing on their kids.
They will be doing so over the targeting of pro-life protesters, and the failure to treat pro-choice protesters the same.
They will be doing so over targeting Republican political advisors.
And they will be doing so over targeting Trump.
Republicans are going to spend the next 2 years anally probing DOJ/FBI/WH.
You can expect this to go as badly as collusion delusion.
And in the midst of all this will be the Hunter Biden mess,
the war in Ukraine,
and the worsening economy.
You have made Trump into the leader of the opposition.
You have guaranteed that he will be in the news constantly for the next 3 years.
And just about the only way out of this mess you have created for yourselves is video of Trump negotiating with the Saudi’s to buy US nuclear secrets.
Do you really beleive that happened ?
A retainer is not payment in advance. Kise will not get to keep the retainer unless he provides services of that value.
“You’re over exaggerating the problem here.”
Nope
“Banging on the doors of the Supreme Court is not protected speech nobody is saying that but you.”
Anyone arrested ? Nope.
“To protest on a public sidewalk at their homes IS protected free speech.”
Nope.
“Even they justices themselves have asserted that right multiple times.”
Read the cases – laws barring protests in front of private homes have been upheld repeatedly.
It is a violation of federal law.
“Camping in front of buildings in Wall Street CAN be deemed free speech it’s a legitimate protest. There’s a nuance in that one.”
I do not really care. What I care about is your hypocracy.
“Firebombing churches and courthouses is NOT free speech”
No prosecutions, no arrests, no evidence there are even investigations.
“Violence is NOT free speech”
Correct and the actual violence is from the left.
It has been decades since an abortion clinic was vandalized.
“The crime in front of an abortion clinic is due to the fact that it involves physical contact, assault. Pushing away someone involves physical contact in a zone that falls under a federal law.”
Physical contact is not assault TWO courts – one local, one federal previously determined that the conflict was started by the pro-choice volunteer trying to intimidate a 12 year old. More double standards.
“People CAN still protest in those areas as as long as there is no violence, physical contact or blocking access to the clinic.”
The supreme court was not blocked at Schumers protest ?
Justices homes and streets were not blocked ?
Rand Paul, Tucker Carlson, and both of their familes were attacked by left wing protestors on the streets or at their homes.
Carlson had to move to another state in a compound with many acres of private property protecting him from protestors to keep his family safe.
Some left wing nut just murder a teen because he purportedly was UltraMAGA something that does not even appear to be true.
Again two lawyers firebombed NYPD police vehicles. and are getting 18months. People who did not go into the capital, are getting 10yrs.
And why exactly were J6 protestors not allowed in the capital ? Kavanaugh protestors were ?
You are drowning in double standards.
Svelaz, it is self evident that you and the left make up everything as you go.
Why is it that it is illegal to block an abortion clinic, but not the supreme court or a church or mcD’s or Wall Street ?
Why is it illegal to go into the capital if you are republican but not if you are democrat ?
Why is it tresspass to go to the capital but not to go to a supreme court justices home ?
“ To protest on a public sidewalk at their homes IS protected free speech.”
Nope.
“Even they justices themselves have asserted that right multiple times.”
Read the cases – laws barring protests in front of private homes have been upheld repeatedly.
It is a violation of federal law.”
It is protected free speech to protest at a public sidewalk in front of a private home. That’s just basic fundamental case law. What you refer to as federal law is protesting that involves overly loud activity or after hours. It doesn’t deem protesting on public sidewalk illegal. Federal law just imposes a few limitations such as how loud and times. They have not been deemed unconstitutional. The violations of federal law are about the manner not the act of protest. Learn to make distinctions.
“ Banging on the doors of the Supreme Court is not protected speech nobody is saying that but you.”
Anyone arrested ? Nope.”
People were arrested. Even those who disrupted the hearings.
“ People CAN still protest in those areas as as long as there is no violence, physical contact or blocking access to the clinic.”
The supreme court was not blocked at Schumers protest ?
Justices homes and streets were not blocked ?”
No, because it’s not illegal. There IS federal law specifically aimed at limiting the manner of protests in front of abortion clinics. It doesn’t prevent the protesting itself. There’s no law saying protesting is illegal on public sidewalks in front of justices homes. The caveat of the federal law is the government has to prove the intent behind the protesting is to force the justices to change their minds. Protesting is not influencing nor threatening. Protesting is literally expressing an objection. Which the federal law does not make it illegal.
“Federal law just imposes a few limitations such as how loud and times.”
Svelaz, since when do the feds make laws that are under control of the states and municipalities. As John says, you make things up as you go along. To any intelligent person that means they can’t trust anything you say, even if what you say has the semblance of truth.
You have cancelled yourself out.
“It is protected free speech to protest at a public sidewalk in front of a private home. That’s just basic fundamental case law.”
Nope. SCOTUS has allowed different rules for residential areas than commerical areas, also for rural, suburban and urban areas.
There is no SCOTUS decision that actually says – if there is a sidewalk you can protest.
Sidewalks do feature in first amendment cases, but you can not create a first amendment right to protest by putting in a sidewalk, nor end one by talking a sidewalk out.
“What you refer to as federal law is protesting that involves overly loud activity or after hours.”
Those are local not federal laws, and though they exist and are constitutional they are not what I am refering to.
“It doesn’t deem protesting on public sidewalk illegal.”
Correct, it also does not make it legal.
“Federal law just imposes a few limitations such as how loud and times.”
Not federal law.
“They have not been deemed unconstitutional.”
Correct, there have also been court cases regarding the distance protestors have to be away from places.
Some of these laws have been deemed unconstitutional some have been deemed constitutional.
Further the allowable distances in the law are allowed to be different based on the property use – with residential property being the most protected.
Just to be clear I am not saying that there was a local law barring protests within 600ft of homes for the property J. Kavanaugh lived at, only that such laws have been deemed constitutional.
There is federal law prohibiting protests at federal judges homes.
“The violations of federal law are about the manner not the act of protest. Learn to make distinctions.”
I have you haven’t
“ “Banging on the doors of the Supreme Court is not protected speech nobody is saying that but you.”
Anyone arrested ? Nope.”
People were arrested. Even those who disrupted the hearings.”
Not at the supreme court.
There were arrrests of the Kavanaugh protestors.
All were released, all had charges dropped.
Again you are treating J6 protestors differently
That is a violation of equal protection and of viewpoint discrimination.
““ People CAN still protest in those areas as as long as there is no violence, physical contact or blocking access to the clinic.”
The supreme court was not blocked at Schumers protest ?
“Justices homes and streets were not blocked ?”
“No, because it’s not illegal. There IS federal law specifically aimed at limiting the manner of protests in front of abortion clinics.”
And there is federal law regarding courts and judges homes. And it does prevent protests GENERALLY.
That law is likely unconstitutional with respect to the courthouses.
But not with respect to justices homes.
“There’s no law saying protesting is illegal on public sidewalks in front of justices homes.”
Yes there is.
“The caveat of the federal law is the government has to prove the intent behind the protesting is to force the justices to change their minds. ”
Res Ipsa Loquitur
“Protesting is not influencing nor threatening.”
It may not be threatening but it is by definition an attempt to influence.
“Protesting is literally expressing an objection.”
Which federal law DOES make illegal.
“ Firebombing churches and courthouses is NOT free speech”
No prosecutions, no arrests, no evidence there are even investigations.”
There have been arrests and investigations. Not all suspects have been caught though. Your assertion is not completely true.
“ Physical contact is not assault TWO courts – one local, one federal previously determined that the conflict was started by the pro-choice volunteer trying to intimidate a 12 year old. More double standards.”
Unwanted physical contact is assault by law. The pro-choice volunteer trying to intimidate a 12 year old is not a crime unless there is physical contact and aggression. Yelling at a teenager is not a crime. The woman shoving the pro-abortion volunteer is because it involved physical contact and according to federal law physical contact at the clinic during a protest IS a crime. It’s obvious you have a very poor understanding of how the law actually works.
“ And why exactly were J6 protestors not allowed in the capital ? Kavanaugh protestors were ?”
Really? You really don’t get that? J6 protesters were allowed in the capital. The were not allowed IN the CAPITOL building and they were NOT allowed to march to the capitol because the PERMIT explicitly did not authorize a march to the capitol.
The Kavanaugh protestors were not protesting before the hearing and were allowed in with everyone else. They were there as spectators like everyone else. That you don’t get that simple distinction tells us a lot about your ignorance on the issue.
“ Rand Paul, Tucker Carlson, and both of their familes were attacked by left wing protestors on the streets or at their homes.”
Another exaggeration. They were not “attacked” they were accosted by protesters in PUBLIC, there is a difference. Which is allowed as long as they are not physically harmed or threatened. Those incidents are just consequences of holding their controversial positions. It’s no different that what trump supporter Mary Taylor Greene accosting one of parkland shooting students on the street taunting him on camera. You could say she was “attacking” him too.
“ You are drowning in double standards.”
No, you/re just unaware of your ignorance of the law, it’s pretty obvious.
“ Why is it that it is illegal to block an abortion clinic, but not the supreme court or a church or mcD’s or Wall Street ?”
Because there is a SPECIFIC law on blocking abortion clinics. There is also a law specifically prohibiting blocking access to the Supreme Court. The difference, one is about security and being a public entity. The other is about security and being a PRIVATE entity. Congress made a law that made it illegal to block a private clinic, specifically an abortion clinic. It’s a very narrow law specifically tailored to abortion clinics.
“ Why is it illegal to go into the capital if you are republican but not if you are democrat ?
Why is it tresspass to go to the capital but not to go to a supreme court justices home ?”
Here is where you show your ignorance of the law. It is NOT illegal to go into the CAPITAL for anyone. Learn your proper terms. CAPITAL is the CITY as in the national CAPITAL. CAPITOL is the building where congress meets. It’s trespass to go into the CAPITOL when it is in session and force your way into it. It’s not illegal to go to the CAPITAL for anyone.
It’s not illegal to go to protest on a PUBLIC sidewalk in front of a justice’s home when protesting is expressing an objection just like it’s legal to protest in front of an abortion clinic but it is illegal to impede access to it by physically blocking it’s entrance. These great examples that show your ignorance about how the law works and that you don’t know the difference between capitAl and capitOl.
“Unwanted physical contact is assault by law.”
A policeman restraining a violent person is an “assault by law.”
Every response of yours Svelaz, includes multiple statements that are blatantly false. That is why nothing you say is believable. As you keep making things up, you become less and less believable, though I think you are already at ground zero. How deep do you intend to burrow?
Then you would be able to cite the arrests. You have not.
We are having a fight elsewhere – including in the courts over DACA.
As well as over the border.
The position of democrats and the left is that the executive can choose which laws to enforce.
That means they can choose to ignore firebombings of prolife clinics.
They can choose to ignore crimes against blacks or the poor (or whites or the rich).
While that obviously violates equal protection, what is more disturbing still is that is OK with you.
It is OK with you to use politics as a basis for deciding who to prosecute and what laws to enforce and when.
When the volunteer sought to intimidate the child – they shed their role as an abortion clinic volunteer and escort and the laws extraordinary protection that came with that.
The assault claim has been adjudicated both as a tort – low standard and as an assault higher standard by courts already.
The DOJ is trying to enforce a statute specifically to protect abortion clinic staff and volunteers.
That law only applies to them in that role. When they choose to be counter protestors, they shed that protection and special federal law no longer applies.
Regardless, in this specific case two courts have already determined that the volunteers intimidation of the child justified the parent shoving the volunteer away from his child.
We can debate details all you want – the courts have already decided.
You do not get 3 bites at the apple, and the volunteer inarguably stepped outside his protected role – the federal law does not apply.
DOJ is acting blatantly politically.
Again why weren’t the J6 protestors allowed IN the capital ?
Please read the first amendment – the right to free speech, the right to assembly, the right to petition govenrment
Myriads of protests have taken place IN the capital. The Kavanaugh protest took place IN the capital.
The capital is ALWAYS open to the public when congress is in session.
The government can not make choices regarding ANY first amendment activity based on viewpoint.
It is not permitted to say – catholics can come into the capital, but jews can not.
It can not say pro-life protestors can enter the capital, but pro-choice ones can not.
You also do not understand PERMITS – first amendment related permits – permits for protests, are MUST ISSUE.
The capital police can not use the permitting process to selectively prevent protests.
This is very very old first amendment law.
I think the 1st amendment right to petition government requires that protestors be allowed inside the capital PERIOD.
But it does not matter whether you agree. Government CAN NOT engage in viewpoint discrimination – particularly POLITICAL viewpoint discrimination.
The moment it allowed Kavanaugh protestors in the capital while in session (as well as myriads of other protests every day), it was FORBIDDEN to deny the same to any other political protest.
The CP were free to setup cattle chutes, and search people on the way in, to call in the NG for additional manpower. To forbid them from entering with sticks and knives and pepper spray. To bar them from taking bags in, to limit the number in the capital at one time – all so long as the same was done with ALL other protests.
But they were NOT free to say NO.
You are mis-citing and applying the federal clinic law, and your application makes it unconstitutional.
The law specifically bars blocking access – not physical contact. And it specifically covers staff and volunteers in the course of their role.
It does not cover counter protestors. When a volunteer shifts from assisting people trying to enter to viewpoint advocacy they lose the protection of the federal law. They transform themselves from a volunteer to a counter protestor, and shed the laws protection.
I would note that Dobbs likely makes the federal law in question void.
Since there is no constitutional right to an abortion, federal law can not protect that right.
There is an open question as to whether congress could create a civil right to an abortion through legislation.
But they have not done so.
“It is NOT illegal to go into the CAPITAL for anyone. Learn your proper terms. CAPITAL is the CITY as in the national CAPITAL. CAPITOL is the building where congress meets. It’s trespass to go into the CAPITOL when it is in session and force your way into it. It’s not illegal to go to the CAPITAL for anyone.”
Not interested in pedanditic debates over spelling and grammar. made that clear long ago.
Websters capital: being the seat of government
That would be news to the almost 100,000 people who according to the Capital Architect enter the capital building EVERY DAY.
Again standard first amendment law – you can not restrict first amendment rights based on viewpoint.
Once you allow anyone – such as 100,000 people every day, to enter the capital while in session, you can not say “just today because some might be election protestors no one will not be allowed in”
“It’s not illegal to go to protest on a PUBLIC sidewalk in front of a justice’s home when protesting is expressing an objection”
Actually it is. And several specific laws have been cited.
Further while there are court cases about public sidewalks, there is actually no broad right to protest on all public sidewalks (or roads) anywhere.
SCOTUS has allowed different rules for business areas, and residential areas, for cities and rural areas.
Regulations prohibiting protests within large distances of homes have been found constitutional – regardless of the presence of roads and sidewalks.
Time and again YOU are found lacking in understanding of the law.
Physical contact is not a crime or subways would be illegal.
“ Physical contact is not a crime or subways would be illegal.”
John B. Say you’re not THAT stupid. I know you’re better than that. UNWANTED physical contact IS assault according to law. Mere contact is NOT illegal. There has to be an intent behind the purpose of the contact. Your either being obtuse or stupid. Assault has three elements, intent, apprehension of a harmful contact, and. causation. Pushing away someone who isn’t attacking you is assault. It also involves unwanted contact which is more closely defined as battery.
” UNWANTED physical contact IS assault according to law. Mere contact is NOT illegal. “
Your brain functions in an unusual way, a way not seen in intelligent people. On the subway, “Mere contact” is ” UNWANTED physical contact”
You think you are smart, but are proving the opposite to everyone else.
All actual crimes require intent – the intent in this case was crystal clear – the protection of the defendant’s 12 year old son.
The defendant has been protesting at abortion clinics for years. He had been protesting at this one for sometime.
Nothing happened until the pro-choice volunteer left his role as an escort and engaged in political advocacy and phsyical intimidation of the protestors son.
You do not have the requisite intent.
You also have the volunteer acting outside his protected role – so he has shed protection
But before even that you have a legal problem.
Unwanted contact is not sufficient for a crime. It is not even sufficient for a tort – this volunteer already lost a tort claim.
Assault requires contact likely to cause harm – not merely unwanted.
I do not want people to bump into me on a subway.
I would note there were two court procedings on this already.
There are established findings of fact which the DOJ is stuck with.
It is likely this will be dismissed with prejudiced quickly if the defendant has capable lawyers.
DOJ is unlikely to be allowed to re-argue intent or harm.
And without them there is nothing left.
To minimize election shenanigans, we should require same-day voting on hand-marked paper ballots developed by the same people who develop the paper on which we print our currency. We should count each vote by hand, monitored by multiple overhead cameras, streamed live on the internet. No voting machines, no computers, no scanners.
andrew, We cant get a hard number of votes cast.
Just this number would go a long way to stopping fraud. Number of votes cast, needs to be announced 30 minutes after polls close. The we know exactly how many votes are yet to count.
Sounds good.
Meanwhile, in the Professor’s home town of Chicago:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1577868551154585601
Ah!
The Biden admin “Jim Eagle” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
Shocker.
Anyone with any degree of critical thinking skills, that would rule out any and all Dems, would of said, “Well, ya!”
But Dems are not so educated or informed.
They prefer to just by-pass the Constitution, and ignore it. As they are the fascists they are.
We need to fight against the fascists the Dems really are.
Vote GOP in the mid-terms and in 2024!
Election Fraud should be a Capital Offense
Jonathan, please know how much I appreciate this blog. I learn something almost every day, even from the radical Lefties. One suggestion: Too many “Anonymous” folks. I don’t mind fake names, but there should only be one fake name allowed to comment avoid confusion. Use your imagination folks–surely you can come up with a unique handle.
I never hide my name. I own it. It’s hard sometimes because these people probably if they could…..would have me committed. But I am not afraid. To commit me I’d have to be a danger……I’m harmless. They would be deemed paranoid. Before I’m deemed a danger. So don’t worry about anonymous here. Just say what you want to say! Any one here doing anonymous is just a coward. Ignore them. Pick your own handle and speak! Don’t worry. If they run you off you can come back as someone else! They’ll never know! You can do aonymouse…..but why? Why not own it? If God is giving you the courage to speak up…..in the first instance…..he ain’t putting you a cowardd! Own it.
Good, the French stopped this crap because they felt it was too corrupt.
A basic assumption has to be made. If an election is not conducted by the rules put forth by the constitution it is an illegal election. If an illegal election has been conducted is it unusual to consider such an election was rigged. Take sports as an example. If the rules were changed to cause the likelihood that one team would win would the game be considered to be legitimate? Would we not be appalled if the result of the game was not brought into question? Now a court in which the Justices appointed by a Democratic Governor tells us that the rules of the game were improperly changed. We somehow must now think that the illegal rule changes had no effect on the election at all. We didn’t all just fall of the cabbage truck yesterday but some of us did.
Elections must be conducted at a TIME and a PLACE as required by Article 2, Section 1. It is not possible to conduct an election within the TIME of a day through the U.S. mail, which requires more than one day. The U.S. mail is NOT a PLACE (i.e. singular). The Framers intended for voters who have been identified, certified and entitled by their respective States, to go to a polling place and cast a vote on election day. The Framers were and the Constitution is absolutely unconcerned that any particular individuals vote or not. Turnout was 11.6% in 1788 by design when severe vote criteria were applied. The Framers never intended for democracy to be based on one man, one vote, which “…cannot exist as a permanent form of government…” according to de Tocqueville/Tytler/Prentis. The Framers established a restricted-vote republic.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Article 1, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
Any person of sound mind would ask the question, why do the Democrats hate the requirement of a voter ID? The only conclusion that we can come to is that they want people who are not American citizens to vote. If you think I make this accusation without merit I simply ask you to recall that illegal immigrants are allowed to vote in California. You may say that these people have been here for a long time but the law makes no distinction as to the time of residency. If the immigrant arrived here yesterday he/she would be allowed to vote. It seems that there is a great deal of untapped power just waiting for the Democrats if undocumented residents are allowed to vote. Why then should we be surprised when they say that a requirement for a voter ID is racist. According to their logic the good legislators of blue state Delaware must be racist because they have legislated a requirement of an ID to vote in Biden’s home state. They just have to keep them there good victims riled up to stay in power.
So you have the Delaware Legislature passing a law making it easier for people to vote that a handful of judges says doesn’t comply with the Constitution, and based on this,Turley going on a rant calling Joe Biden a liar and attacking Stacey Abrams? That’s the sort of slanted take on issues that paid punditry gets you. The Legislature is closer to the will of the citizens–not a handful of appointed judges–but that’s not the point. It’s Turley constantly getting in digs at Biden and other Democrats using any court ruling or other issue that comes up while ignoring the fact that Trump is still holding out on more stolen documents, that his $3 million attorney bowed out, most likely because he wouldn’t lie about the still-missing classified documents, and then, there’s Herschel Walker. Some states have voting only by mail, and there’s never been any problem with widespread voter fraud. There wasn’t any problem with widespread voter fraud in 2020 due to mail-in ballots, either but today’s little piece is calculated to add fuel to the narrative pushed by Fox that Democrats are trying to cheat using mail in ballots. The only “issue” with mail-in ballots in 2020 is that when they started arriving at the election counting locations in swing states, Trump’s lead went away, which is exactly what he was told, long before election day, would happen–in-person voting would favor him, but mail-ballots would favor Biden. Many states don’t allow mail in ballots to be tabulated until Election Day. When this came to pass, he flew into a panic, and demanded that someone come up with a way to stop the mail ballots from being counted. Then, he insisted that the mail ballots were all fraudulent–based on nothing but his delicate ego–a lie he continues to promote to this day, even though he lost 60+ lawsuits for lack of evidence, and all recounts, re-recounts, hand recounts and forensic investigations prove that he did lose.
Gigi, I guess you missed it. Voter ID is required in Delaware to vote. The mail in vote was allowed in Delaware because of Covid. Even your hero Joe Biden says that the pandemic is over. The judges on the Delaware Supreme Court are appointed by the Governor of Delaware. The state of Delaware has had a Democratic Governor since 1993. Now you say that Delaware Supreme Court Justices appointed by A Democratic Governor have opinions that should not matter. Poof goes your argument up in smoke wafting from a very small fire indeed.
The law is either constitutional or not. This is not a question of just saying something.
If the law is not constitutional – the legislature failed in passing the law.
There is no exception to the requirements of constitutionality for good intentions.
There is of course difference of oppinion over whether making it easier to vote is inherently good.
But as is typical of the left – they just presume that away.
It is easier for all of us to vote telepathically – but it should not be very difficult to grasp why that is a bad idea.
Everything that is easier is not inherently good.
Biden is a liar, and Stacey Abram’s is an incredible hypocrite and makes hypocrites of those of you on the left.
“The Legislature is closer to the will of the citizens–not a handful of appointed judges”
Correct, and that is why we are not a democracy. The will of the people is often wrong, self contradictory and unconstitutional.
The judiciary exists and is deliberately isolated from the people to protect the rights of the individual from the minority.
And to place the constitution over the ephemeral will of the people.
Trump did not steal anything and there is no allegation that he did.
There are several questions regarding these documents.
Can Trump continue to possess them after he is no longer president ? No matter how that is answered there is no crime.
What Documents is DOJ entitled to pursuant to a warrant. A question that has nothing to do with whether Trump can posses something.
Was the warrant valid ?
At the moment the courts are really only looking at the 2nd question.
While the 11th cir. ct. of appeals got its decision wrong – specifically because it addressed a question of fact, not law that had no bearing on a warrant, the issue they addressed will ultimately become very important.
Hiding in all of this is that Neitehr Warrants nor subpeana’s are the legitimate means to address Trump’s possessor interest in these documents.
Warrant’s seek evidence of a crime – not possession of documents. Quiet often these are inseparable – but not in the instance of documents.
The PRA is about preserving the record of a presidency. It is not about taking posession of every single copy of every document of a prior president.
The national Archives has not seized every privately held copy of the declaration of independence or the constitution.
Increasingly it appears that this raid had several purposes – and that claims regarding classified documents are merely a pretext.
One purpose was to obtain Trump’s communications with his lawyers in the hopes that something would be useful to the J6 committee.
Of course Trump’s communications with his lawyers are priviledged, and DOJ is not a lackey for the J6 committee, they can issue their own subpeona’s and go to court to enforce them.
Another purpose increasing appears to be to deny Trump the Collusion delusion documents he declassified – which still have not been made public. Because they are damaging to DOJ/FBI and likely Biden, and lots of democrats.
The FBI/DOJ participating in a conspiracy to prevent the release of declassified documents describing malfeasance or even just information that is politically embarrassing is a CRIME.
“ Trump did not steal anything and there is no allegation that he did.”
Yes he did steal government documents. They were not his to keep. NARA is the legal rightful owner of those documents according to the law. Trump deliberately withholding documents that are not his is considered theft under the law. The PRA makes this clear.
“ Can Trump continue to possess them after he is no longer president ?”
No, the PRA is explicitly clear on why he cannot possess them.
“ Was the warrant valid ?”
Yes. There was probable cause and the resulting evidence from the search showed the claims in the affidavit for the warrant were valid.
“ While the 11th cir. ct. of appeals got its decision wrong – specifically because it addressed a question of fact, not law that had no bearing on a warrant, the issue they addressed will ultimately become very important.”
Wrong. The 11th circuit’s decision was about judge Cannon’s ruling. Judge Cannon’s ruling was nonsensical and prevented the DOJ from continuing its investigation on documents that Trump clearly had no right to possess regardless of classification. Judge Cannon did not issue the warrant judge Reinhardt did. The case was NOT about the warrant. Trump did not dispute the validity of the warrant either.
“ The national Archives has not seized every privately held copy of the declaration of independence or the constitution.”
It only has control of the original. Copies of unclassified documents are not illegal to possess. They are not presidential records either.
“ Increasingly it appears that this raid had several purposes – and that claims regarding classified documents are merely a pretext.”
Wrong, the search warrant was the result of Trump LYING to NARA and the DOJ finding out Trump had classified documents that he did not have authority to possess. Refusal to comply with a subpoena is also a valid reason for a warrant. The DOJ had no reason to believe Trump was being honest AFTER finding out Trump lied about giving back all documents back. Now it seems there might be more documents in other properties.
“Yes he did steal government documents.”
Nope. Theft is an act. Posession is not.
” They were not his to keep. NARA is the legal rightful owner of those documents according to the law.”
Nope, NARA is the custodian of the documents until they are in a presidential library which is a private foundation created by ex-presidents that owns the contents of the library. Please read the law.
” Trump deliberately withholding documents that are not his is considered theft under the law.”
Nope, that is not the law.
“The PRA makes this clear.”
YOu clearly have not read the PRA or any of the court decisions involving it.
“No, the PRA is explicitly clear on why he cannot possess them.”
Again false. pleas actually read the PRA and the court cases regarding it.
“Yes.”
False.
“There was probable cause and the resulting evidence from the search showed the claims in the affidavit for the warrant were valid.”
This is ludicrously stupid. Warrants are NEVER justifiable a posteriori.
If DOJ/FBI had found a nuclear weapon in MAL that would not make the warrant legal.
Read the 4th amendment – The DOJ/FBI must SWEAR (affadavit) to Evidence demonstrating probable cause:
That a crime has been commited,
That the search will provide evidence of that crime.
You were completely wrong above regarding the PRA – but even if you were not wrong – there still is no THEFT, no crime.
The PRA is not a criminal law.
Further government documents are not owned. They are either classified – meaning it is restricted who has access to them, or they are not.
In which case they belong to the public. You can fill out an FOIA request and get nearly any document the federal government has except classified documents. Are you saying that if Trump has copies of something the Washington Post or John doe can get through and FOIA request that is a crime ? That is stupid. But typical of those on the left.
NARA is tasked with preserving the primary source history of the US government. FOR the american people, not FROM the american people.
It does not exist to deny either the expresidents or ordinary people access to or copies of government documents.
The proper judicial decision for Judge Cannon is.
The government may not have copies of anything seized that is either priviledged – lawyer client related or personal.
DOJ/FBI may have COPIES of only the remaining documents that are responsive to the warrant including documents marked classified.
Trump may keep all originals, including documents marked classified – if either
he can establish that it is likely they are declassified – an affadavit from him that he declassified them would be sufficient.
Or they are secured in the SCIF in the presidential office at MAL.
NARA can go to court to get copies of any presidential records that Trump has.
Next should DOJ/FBI decide to move forward and indict Trump – there will be a hearing as to whether the warrant was valid,
That is not currently in Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction. And if they warrant is determined to be without foundation, everything taken must be returned to Trump.
That is how the actual law works.
“The 11th circuit’s decision was about judge Cannon’s ruling.”
Correct, and the legal standard for an appeal to a judges non-final ruling is that the challenge must be to the LAW, not the facts. The facts have to be presumed as the non-moving party Trump claims.
This is pretty standard law.
The 11th cir. ct. apl. Clearly in its decision made Factual decisions. It specifically stated that Factual claims by Trump were false.
Appeals courts are not trial courts. They do not make findings of facts. They are only under rare circumstances allowed to consider facts differently than lower courts.
“Judge Cannon’s ruling was nonsensical”
Nope it was pretty straight forward black letter law, and 4th amendment law.
“and prevented the DOJ from continuing its investigation”
Nope, it merely delayed that.
“documents that Trump clearly had no right to possess regardless of classification.”
Your assertion about if a claim of fact and law that is precisely what Cannon’s court and the special master are deciding.
Which is Does DOJ/FBI have a right to seize these documents.
As DOJ/FBI has already admitted – they took things they were not allowed to take.
As the SM reviews documents, the SM’s decisions will be forwared to Cannon and she will rule which documents DOJ/FBI gets to have.
It is likely DOJ/FBI will get most of these documents – to my knowledge Cannon is not being asked to rule on the validity of the warrant itself.
Only whether the documents taken are responsive to the warrant.
Ultimately what is responsive to the warrant will be determined broadly – DOJ/FBI will likely get most of these documents.
Though I would note this is NOT a fight over “possession” – Trump will likely ALSO get most or all of these documents.
The purpose of a warrant is to allow government to get evidence. It is not to deprive others of possession.
I would note already the court has ordered all the documents scanned (including classified documents), and copies provided to both DOJ, Trump, and the SM.
Do you think NARA is going to confiscate all the copies after the hearings are over ?
“Judge Cannon did not issue the warrant judge Reinhardt did.”
Correct. Reinhardt is a magistrate judge, specifically he is the magistrate judge assigned to Judge Cannon – that is why this case is in here court.
Magistrate Judges are not trial judges. They are not article III judges.
“The case was NOT about the warrant.”
Correct, it is about whether DOJ/FBI seized documents that are priviledged, or not responsive to the warrant.
“Trump did not dispute the validity of the warrant either.”
False and irrelevant. This is not the time or place Trump would challenge the Warrant.
If that Time and place actually comes – which would also likely be in Judge Cannon’s court.
Then Cannon can find the warrant improperly issued and Trump gets everything returned.
Unless DOJ/FBI has something substanative in the redacted portions of the affadavit
that is what is going to happen LATER – IF DOJ/FBI actually proceed with this.
“It only has control of the original. Copies of unclassified documents are not illegal to possess. They are not presidential records either.”
Good you are learning. It is near certain that 90% of these documents are COPIES.
Those that are originals almost certainly qualifies as PERSONAL documents, and regardless, NARA already has copies.
I would note the same is true of classified documents.
Further Classified documents are NOT illegal to possess – if you have the appropriate security clearance – which Trump does,
and if they are kept within a government controlled space and stored in a SCIF. Trump’s presidential office at MAL meets these requirements.
The espionage act is not about possession. It is about ACTS. Regardless, Trump’s possession is authorized.
Unless you have evidence that Trump took documents from the WH after Jan 20, 2021, then these documents were legally in his possession,
and his posession does not magically become illegal on Jan 21, 2021. Because he retains his security clearance – per Obama’s EO,
He retains a duty to continue to secure classified documents.
“Wrong, the search warrant was the result of Trump LYING to NARA and the DOJ finding out Trump had classified documents that he did not have authority to possess.”
False. there are no lies, the warrant did not allege lies, and even if it did lying is not in and of itself a basis for a warrant.
The warrant alleges specific crimes. The affadavit must provide evidence of those crimes. While the standard of proof for a warrant is just probable cause. The unredacted portions of the affidavit do not provide any basis for the warrant.
Finally ex-presidents retain their security clearances – per Obama’s EO, and the presidential offices inside of MAL are a government leased space with a SCIF that classified information can reside in.
“Refusal to comply with a subpoena is also a valid reason for a warrant.”
Not at all. Not even close.
Warrants require probable cause of a crime.
Subpeona’s are not even orders of a court, they are demands for information. They are demands by an attorney – not the court.
“The DOJ had no reason to believe Trump was being honest AFTER finding out Trump lied about giving back all documents back. Now it seems there might be more documents in other properties.”
Trump has no reason to beleive the DOJ – nor do the rest of us. Your or DOJ’s lack of trust of Trump is not a basis for a warrant or an investigation or anything else. You do not seem to grasp this.
This is not the USSR, you do not get to investigate people because you do not like them.
Because you do not trust them.
In January 2023, You the FBI, the DOJ and the WH are going to get a primer on the 4th amendment, and the weaponization of government and law enforcement for political purposes without probable cause of an actual crime.
I am going to briefly address the possession of classified documents as you seem to think that is core.
I would note none of this is relevant if these documents are not classified.
First I would suggest that you review the SCOTUS decision
New York Times Co. v. United States
This is the case regarding the Times and WaPo publication of the pentagon papers.
Some Facts:
The pentagon papers are among the highest level of classified documents held by government during the vietnam war.
Daniel Elsberg had legitimate access, copied them and without authorization provided them to the Washington Post.
WaPo published them in installments.
After the first installment the US went to court to block further publication and to get the documents back.
The US lost MASSIVELY
The mere possession of classified documents is NOT a crime.
Even the possession of classified documents that were obtained illegally is NOT a crime.
Daniel Elsberg did commit and actual crime – when without authorization he copied classified documents and removed them.
But ultimately he was not prosecuted because government malfeasance tainted the process.
There are a few specific differences between this case and the pentagon papers.
First Trump did NOT commit a crime by moving classified documents to MAL as president.
So unlike the Pentagon papers case there is no underlying Crime.
Had Trump’s security clearance magically disappeared on jan 21, 2021, there would be no crime and no possibility of a crime.
Trump would be free to publish these documents if he chose BUT DOJ/NARA/FBI would also be free to retrieve the classified documents.
Because Trump retains a security clearance – he retains the right to access these documents, but he also continues to have a duty to protect them. In otherwords, IF they are classified, he can let them sit at MAL forever without committing a crime. But he can not publish them or share them with others who are not cleared. He is also obligated to keep them secure – the locked int he SCIF at MAL is sufficient.
So again we have no crime here.
I will move to distinguishing this from Clinton.
Clinton was not president, presidents may take classified documents with them where ever they go.
They make take them to their homes. Arguably the president could authorize the Sec. State to take classified documents home and keep them securely. But no president has ever done so. No one but the president can remove a classified document from a classified setting without committing a crime.
So Clinton’s first problem is that she had to commit a crime to have possession of classified documents outside the State department SCIF – Trump did not.
Clinton’s next problem is that like Trump (as ex-president) she has a duty to protect those classified documents. Instead she sent them to people who were not authorized and she put them on an email server connected to the internet. That is a separate crime.
Conversely Trump came into possession of these documents legally as president. and to-date there is no proof he did anything improper with them. They have not been emailed to anyone. they have not been copied, they are not on the internet.
There are unusual aspects of this case because Trump was president and because he is now ex-president.
But the law as it exists can still be applied, and you can not reach a crime with the actual facts we currently have.
DOJ/FBI/NARA can want these documents back – and if they are classified – they probably can get a court order to get them back, though even that is not clear. Absent Biden rescinding Trump’s access – something only the president can do, a proper application of the law would have NARA/DOJ/FBI losing if they went to court merely to deny Trump possession.
“ Hiding in all of this is that Neitehr Warrants nor subpeana’s are the legitimate means to address Trump’s possessor interest in these documents.”
They were legitimate specifically because Trump was not cooperating with NARA. NARA was patiently negotiating with Trump for the return of the documents that did NOT belong to him. Trump spent that time jerking NARA around until they were forced to issue a subpoena to get the documents back. It is now reported that it was trump who packed those documents, the first batch sent to NARA. Because the search at MAL turned out more documents AFTER filing documents with NARA that he gave them EVERYTHING NARA was forced to report the lying to the DOJ and issue a subpoena. This is why the subpoena and the warrant were legal.
“ One purpose was to obtain Trump’s communications with his lawyers in the hopes that something would be useful to the J6 committee.
Of course Trump’s communications with his lawyers are priviledged, and DOJ is not a lackey for the J6 committee, they can issue their own subpeona’s and go to court to enforce them.”
Communications with his PERSONAl lawyers is indeed privileged, however communications with White House counsel which are NOT his personal lawyers is privileged unless the current president WAIVES the privilege which is what Biden did when the J6 committee sought the documents from NARA. Trump fought and lost that case when the Supreme Court ruled Trump didn’t have privilege over those documents.
Trump is claiming BOTH, White House counsel and his personal lawyer’s communications are privileged because he believes the White House counsel was his personal lawyer as well. That is obviously not correct.
“ Another purpose increasing appears to be to deny Trump the Collusion delusion documents he declassified – which still have not been made public. Because they are damaging to DOJ/FBI and likely Biden, and lots of democrats.”
No, because those documents were NOT his begin with. They are not his personal property. They belong to NARA and if the J6 committee subpoenas NARA for the documents NARA is obligated to comply. Trump doesn’t want the DOJ to keep those documents because they may contain evidence that HE was lying. There are ample reasons why Trump wanted to keep those documents despite them belonging to the government.
“ The FBI/DOJ participating in a conspiracy to prevent the release of declassified documents describing malfeasance or even just information that is politically embarrassing is a CRIME.”
No, the DOJ and the FBI are doing their job. Trump has already shown he was lying about the documents, the declassifying them, and claiming they are his when the law clearly points out everything he has said is a lie. Trump won’t say in court that he declassified the documents or provide proof that he did because he is lying. There is plenty of evidence to charge him with obstruction and crimes under the espionage act. it’s just a matter of time before it all catches up to him.
The FBI appealing to the11th circuit which you declared would be a mistake proved to be wrong. Judge Cannon clearly demonstrated that she is biased towards trump and is doing her best to help him out. The 11th circuit has already rebuked Judge Cannon for her nonsensical legal rationale it won’t be surprising if the Supreme Court does the same. Justice Thomas has a serious problem himself. He already faces calls to recuse himself because his wife clearly is influencing his decisions regarding Trump. She will be begging him to save Trump. Thomas may be forced to decline to intervene or face the prospect of being preferential to trump because his wife is an ardent trump supporter.
No they are not legitimate with respect to the arguments you are making.
Warants and subpeonas are processes to obtain evidence. They are not means to deny another party of possession.
If you are fighting over ownership – you get a court order for possession. Not a subpoena or warrant.
That is not how our law works.
The question is not are warrants and subpeona’s legitimate.
It is are they legally legitimate for the purpose.
They are not.
When government uses the wrong legal process to acheive a goal – it is the conduct of government that is a problem.
The law is not something you play by ear.
If as you claim Trump was not cooperating with NARA – that is a matter for the courts – not DOJ/FBI.
Involving DOJ/FBI is itself lawless.
The Rule of law would require NARA to go to court to get a court order to require Trump to do as they wish.
The court would NOT consider the question “Is Trump cooperating” – atleast not until a COURT ORDER was violated.
The question it would address would be Does NARA have the power to force possession of these documents.
It is highly likely the reason NARA did not go to court is because they would have lost. Prior caselaw does not favor NARA.
Those of you on the left keep ignoring that.
WE have many cases on the issue of presidential documents and the government has won most of them. But you have to look at the cases and look at what was decided and why. No court has ever decided that the documents of ex-presidents are the property of NARA or that they can take them because they want them. And NARA did not take Trump to court over that – because they likely would have lost.
The cases thus far have decided that Where Government – Not NARA can demonstrate a compelling need – such as to pursue a criminal investigatrion, then the ex-presidents interests and rights are overcome by the governments.
But that has always required a court to determine that – NARA can not do it on its own. DOJ can not FBI can not. the WH can not.
Even right now with Obama’s documents in a furnitiure store in Chicago. Biden can not go to NARA and demand some of Obama’s documents.
T%hose documents – including the classified ones are controled BY LAW by Obama not Biden. To access them Biden must convince a court that he needs them.
You do not know the law (or the facts). NARA is never more than a temporary custodian of presidential documents.
Regardless, if what you beleive to be true is true – the appropriate procedure is for NARA to get a court order.
The processes of criminal law are not a shortcut arround the judiciary and civil law processes.
The Biden Admin has gotten itself into a significant bind here.
If they do not indict Trump – only true beleivers on the left will view WH/DOJ/FBI’s actions as anything but lawless.
It will be self evident to most that this is all political.
Worse the large number of self evidently political misuses of law enforcement by this admnistration will blend together as one gigantic lawless political conspiracy.
Conversely if they do indict – it appears this must proceded in the 11th Circuit and Cannon will be the judge handling the case.
Reinhardt issued the warrant, and he is her Magistrate Judge. The documents were at MAL, and the alleged crimes were committed at MAL.
There are probably worse places for DOJ to have to do battle with Trump – but not many.
Trump will have a law abiding judge and at least a half friendly jury. This is not DC where the courts and the jury will rubber stamp the left.
And Contra your claims – Trump has excellent lawyers.
The only thing worse than failing to indict Trump will be losing to Trump.
Finally no matter what DOJ does – they have guaranteed Trump free media coverage for several years.
Further all of this will take place in the context of a worsening economy.
Further decline on Biden’s part,
Democrats losing control of one or more likely both parts of congress.
Either the prosecution and likely Pardon of Hunter Biden in Delaware.
Or even better, nothing happening, Republicans and ordinadry people are going to be asking over and over and over again what “nobody F#$ks with a Biden” means.
I would further note this goes beyond Hunter. There is strong odds of a special counsel in 2023.
Frankly Garland would be wise to appoint a friendly one now, as it would improves DOJ’s ability to refuse to cooperate with a republican congress.
Those factors are not supposed to effect potential criminal litigation against Trump.
But you are an idiot if you think they will not.
You have correctly noted that Trump is a narcissist, I noted that it is Trump that has made sure the raid on MAL went public in a big way.
One of the ways Trump won the GOP primary in 2016 was by saying outrageous things that got him lots and lots of free media.
The left has gone out of its way to censor the crap out of Trump.
But he still lives rent free in your heads.
So long as he does, You will keep giving him the opportunity to make a public splash and get his message accross to everyone not on the far left.
It is quite clear you have no familiarity with law, case law, or past history on these issues.
Trump has not been caught in any lies on this – not that it is relevant as the burden of proof is not on him.
But DOJ FBI has repeatedly and the longer this goes the more they will.
The number of priviledeged and personal documents has doubled TWICE since the raid. By DOJ’s admission.
There will be many more oportunities for DOJ/FBI to get entangled in their own web as this procedes.
DOJ demanded a fast schedule.
Then they came to Dearlie begging for an extension.
Trump told Dearlie he agreed, but wanted a much longer extension – not because he needed more time – but because DOJ could not get the job done in the time they asked for. Dearlie granted DOJ’s request, Cannon extended the schedule almost to Trump’s time frame. The 11th cir. ct. apl. stupidly stepped in and split the difference.
What do you think the odds are that DOJ asks for another extension ?
As Trump’s lawyers pointed out – there are 11,000 documents. There are 200,000 pages.
Just scanning them will take longer than DOJ allows. The fastest a priviledge review has ever taken before is 50 pages an hour. That is two full man years to do 200K documents.
Government – law enforcement NEVER work fast.
And this will get messier and harder for them over time.
Going to court against a billionaire who appointed many of the judges you are dealing with is not the same as going to court against a Drug dealer.
And you and the left are under the stupid delusion that Trump is running scared.
He WANTS THIS. I strongly suspect that this is atleast partly a deliberate rope-a-dope of Garland and Biden.
You keep making claims like Trump is stupid. Then you underestimate him at every turn.
Recently Biden gave his reichstag blood and soil speech demonizing the current Fascists stand in for the Jews – Ultra Maga.
While the democrats poured $50M into republican primaries to assure the most extreme republicans won.
It is possible that strategy will reduce the GOP majority by a handful of votes in the house. But on the flip side it will ensure that the Republican House and Senate will have an enormous percent of Republicans that are the very people Biden demonized.
Further – no one wants Biden on the campaign Trail. Conversely Trump is everywhere. The record of the candidates he has backed is stellar.
These people will be taking power owing Trump – not McConnell, not the RNC – but Trump.
Barring a miracle for democrats Trump starts 2023 owning the Republican Party, the house and the senate, and if I am to beleive democrats he will also own the supreme court.
With respect specifically to the court, One of the unmentioned problems Trump faces in his election challenge is the perception that he was a lame duck, that he had no political power, that his loss was as much the result of never Trumpers and establishment republicans working to oust him as democrat chicanery.
Since 2020 Trump has deliberately targeted those in the GOP that voted to impeach him, Those in the GOP that opposed him.
And he has had an incredible track record in doing so.
Trump will start 2023 as the heir aparent. Biden will start it as an obvious lame duck.
That is not supposed to effect courts and judges – but it did in 2020, and it will in 2023.
I warned Republicans HERE in 2021 that they should not count on the midterms. Biden inherited the wind at his back.
All he had to do to be popular and successful was nothing. Do not make waves. As Adam Smith said 250 years ago, all that is requisite to raise a people from poverty to oppulence is peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of government.
Biden Failed to head Smith’s advice and has gone from the wind at his back to headed into a gale in record time.
The future is not easily predicted. I would not have predicted Biden would fail this badly – but he did so, and it is entirely the consequence of his own choices – not bad luck. It is highly unlikely that will change in the next 2+ years. All the problems Biden is facing right now will eventually end. But they would end sooner if he made the right choices. There is zero indication he will do that.
The future is not easily predicted, but the odds of rolling box cars 6 times in a row are slim.
Further prosperity does not strike us randomly. But problems do.
The best hope for democrats in the next 2 years is that Trump drops dead.
And then you will have to deal with DeSantis.
Who like Trump, YOU created.
If the supreme court hears any of what has happened thus far it will only be to rebuke the 11th cir. ct. of appeals.
That will only occur if Trump appeals – which I do not think he has.
The DOJ appeal was decided wrongly but it was not consequential
DOJ was going to get the documents marked classified regardless.
This only has a small impact on timing.
The 11th appeals has also stupidly intervened in scheduling.
That is unlikely to be appealed either.
DOJ will either meet the schedule THEY demanded or Trump, and Cannon look good and the 11th Apeals looks like a goat.
Regardless, Trump is not likely to appeal the 11th appeals until he has an issue that actually has consequence.
Both of DOJ’s appeals look stupid because at best they sped things up a few days – and then only if they can manage.
As to what SCOTUS will do if any of this gets to them – that depends on what gets to them.
It is a near certainty they will afirm the presidents power to declassify anything.
It is nearly certain they will afirm the ABJ decision that presidential records are the property of the ex-president.
It is also likely to afirm that when government follows the proper procedures that almost any excuse is sufficient to gain access (not possession) of former presidents records.
I have no idea what they will do regarding this essentially general warrant that has been issued.
On some warrant issues the conservatives on the court have been restrictive of warrants.
Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito voted against Carpenter. But the majority in Jones was Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Sotomayor.
4th amendmnet cases often have very weird splits. Whether Trump or Biden like it or not – SCOTUS is not going to be focused on Trump.
They are going to be focussed on their view of the 4th amendment.
Further we do not have enough facts yet. The breadth of this warrant alone is likely to run affoul of existing supreme court 4th amendment decisions. But we have seen very little of the affidavit yet, and what we have is useless for the government.
Government MUST assert that a crime has or will occur – and it must do so to the standard of probable cause. Nothing we have seen supports the cited crimes in the warrant.
Mailin ballots violate the constitutional requirement of secret balloting that is in the state constitutions of 38 states – including 5 of the 6 contested states. Of course it is “Cheating” – if you want Mailin voting in those states – amend those states constitutions.
I would note that in most of these states mailin voting is unconstitutional by MULTIPLE provisions of the state constitution.
It is an abysmally bad idea. Your claim that 2020 demonstrated otherwise is ludicrously stupid.
Even banana republics do not engage in anything so stupid as mailin voting.
If – which we know better, 2002 was actually relatively fraud free – that STILL would not justify mailin voting.
If we did not have massive fraud in 2020 (which we likely did), we WILL with certainty eventually.
Election fraud is not so scarce as the left thinks. But it is generally limited to close elections. So long as elections are close – fraud if possible will occur. And mailin elections can not be conducted without undetectable, and uncorrecteable fraud.
Elections must be conducted at a TIME and a PLACE as required by Article 2, Section 1.
It is not possible to conduct an election within the TIME of a day through the U.S. mail, which requires more than one day.
The U.S. mail is NOT a PLACE (i.e. singular).
The Framers intended for voters who have been identified, certified and entitled by their respective States, to go to a polling place and cast a vote on election day.
The Framers were and the Constitution is absolutely unconcerned that any particular individuals vote or not.
Turnout was 11.6% in 1788 by design when severe vote criteria were applied.
One man, one vote democracy
The Framers never intended for democracy to be based on one man, one vote, which “…cannot exist as a permanent form of government…” according to de Tocqueville/Tytler/Prentis.
The Framers established a restricted-vote republic.
________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville/Alexander Tytler/Henning Prentis
Article 1, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
“AG Paxton Sues Battleground States for Unconstitutional Changes to 2020 Election Laws”
“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.
‘Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,’ said Attorney General Paxton. ‘Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.’
“Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.”
– Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Texas filed that suit on December 8, 2020 and the Supreme Court dismissed it on December 11 for a lack of standing.
And John Roberts and John McCain RAMMED through the immutably unconstitutional Obamacare, even as Obama himself will never be a “natural born citizen” or eligible for the office of president. And everything “Crazy Abe” did was unconstitutional, ask Chief Justice Taney. Oh, and Biden is INSANE; you may be the only person who doesn’t know.
When the law strips away voter ID and chain-of-custody balloting, it won’t be long before somebody starts cheating because it’s easy. Next thing you know, everybody is cheating because “everybody does it.” Finally, nobody trusts elections, and the only way to resolve hotly contested outcomes is by civil conflict.
Elections must be quickly and easily documented as reliable if they are to prevent rushes to violence. January 6th is the unsurprising result of sloppy election laws. The Democrats can wave the bloody shirt all they want, but the next January 6th could easily come from the left. Democrats are famous for rioting.
The Democrats want sloppy election laws so they can prowl nursing homes and crack houses for ballot harvesting. This is fraud.
It’s amazing to me what some people can never understand.
Excellent post.
Trust in our institutions is at an all time low
The courts, the president,
Congress, the press, social media.
in our elections.
It is low among republicans, it is low among democrats.
The legitimacy and power of government comes from elections and our trust of them.
Contra Biden’s reichstag speech, a lack of trust in elections is not a partisan issue.
Leaders of both parties have repeatedly attacked the integrity of elections they lost.
There is nothing wrong with that, it should be welcome.
It should result in scrutiny.
While the collusion delusion investigations are nonsense and should not have happened
public scrutiny of the 2016 election was REQUIRED because of the widely believed allegations of foreign interference.
The fundamental problem with the left and the collusion delusion is that there purpose was to convict some one of a crime.
before it was actually established that wrongdoing occurred.
The 2020 election required that same public scrutiny. Which it has not received.
Frankly ALL elections should have some forms of after the election public scrutiny
both as an anti-fraud measure and to establish trust with voters.
There are many things we can do to improve trust in our elections and to reduce the possibility of fraud.
One of which is to require that to win an election you must get atleast 51% of the vote.
The odds of fraud decline exponentially with the scale of the fraud necescary to win.
Another step would be to decentralize elections as much as possible.
Every major allegation of 2020 fraud involved a vote counting center that was counting millions of ballots.
Just count votes at precincts. If there is no place where more than 15,000 ballots are being counted by the same people,
organized fraud is far harder. I would also note that eliminates chain of custody issues.
Conduct all aspects of an election with public scrutiny.
Conduct all elections as simply and uniformly as possible.
Mailin voting, early voting, absentee voting, all introduce further complexities that require more and more complex laws, and that weaken anti-fraud measures. One of the major antifraud measures in secret ballot elections is that ballots never leave the direct oversight of election officials.
That means that if a fraudulent ballot is found we KNOW that the election officials were responsible. Mailin voting eliminates the ability to know that issues with ballots are always with election officials.
Mexico & Brazil require a Voter ID Card with Photo to vote in their elections. America must do the same or else Election Denialists like Stacey Abrams, Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, George Soros and Marc Elias will undermine the US electoral system at every opportunity they get
Mexico:
In Mexico, the vote is universal, free, secret, direct, personal and not transferable. All persons with Mexican nationality, by birth or by naturalization, who are 18 years of age or older, and have an honest way of living, have the right to vote. However, in order to exercise this right, the law establishes certain additional requirements such as registration of the citizen in the Federal Registry of Voters and possession of a photo-voting card, which is issued free of charge by the Federal Electoral Institute.
https://www.ine.mx/electoral-registry/
Brazil:
Voto – documentos para votar
Para comprovar a identidade da eleitora ou do eleitor perante a mesa receptora de votos, serão aceitos os seguintes documentos oficiais com foto, inclusive os digitais:
e-Título;
carteira de identidade, identidade social, passaporte ou outro documento de valor legal equivalente, inclusive carteira de categoria profissional reconhecida por lei;
certificado de reservista;
carteira de trabalho; e
carteira nacional de habilitação.
Aqueles documentos poderão ser aceitos ainda que expirada a data de validade, desde que seja possível comprovar sua identidade.
https://www.tre-sc.jus.br/eleicoes/tire-suas-duvidas/voto-documentos-para-votar
“In Mexico, the vote is universal, free, secret, direct, personal and not transferable.”
America is a multicultural society and probably is the least racist among them, providing equal rights to minorities not seen in other nations. Sometimes, we glamorize those nations that do not deserve such accolades because to do so is a reflection of our own biases.
When I was young, I lived in Mexico for several months. I do not believe the indigenous population had the rights of Mexican citizens, and I think they could not go to Mexican hospitals, or at least certain hospitals, and I doubt they could vote.
I remember a push to integrate the indigenous people into Mexican society at the turn of this past century (turn to 2,000), and not until this century did the indigenous People have their rights recognized.
These are my recollections that I believe are reasonably accurate.
Your “recollections” ARE inaccurate.
“ America is a multicultural society and probably is the least racist among them, providing equal rights to minorities not seen in other nations.”
Not in the south. They are hanging on to their racism like their lives depend on it.
That is untrue. Racism is not extinct, but for the most part it is non-existent. Do not confuse racism with personal bias and a desire to be with people that you are most familiar with.
Racism in the south was largely extinguished when the Democrats finally learned their type of racism was wrong and counterproductive.
Racism is still a big thing in the south. You’re wrong.
“ That is untrue. Racism is not extinct, but for the most part it is non-existent.” Huh?
Mostly non-existent is not a thing. It’s either existent or not. Obviously it’s very much existent throughout the country.
Racism in some form is going to exist forever. There is nothing that you can do about that.
You can not control people thoughts or their views.
We see self evident anti-asian racism at Harvard right now.
It is an inherent part of human nature that we favor those closest to us or that we have something in common with.
We look after ourselves, out immediate family, then our extended family, our neighborhood, our clan, our tribe, our religion, our race, our country. That will always be true to some extent. Nor is it inherently evil.
But there is no evidence of significant systemic or institutional racism.
As to your claim that the South today is especially racist – how about evidence of that ?
I attended GA Tech in the late 70’s. I had to travel from rural GA to Atlanta everyday.
I saw very little racism then and that was 40 years ago.
Stacy Abrams a complete nut job, is going to lose to Brian Kemp for the 2nd time – but inarguably both races were close.
There are black mayors throughout the south. GA has a black Senator, and regardless of the outcome of 2022 will continue to have one.
Herman Cain was born in Memphis, Grew up in GA, was successful in the navy and then rose through corporate america through the south.
Charlie Pride is one of many very successful black country music singers.
I was in Texas a few years ago and there was open and blatant prejudice – against “immigrants” from California.
“Mostly non-existent is not a thing.”
If you wanted to pick on something, you should have chosen the hyphen since the word today is nonexistent. Modifiers for the word nonexistent are in common usage; “almost nonexistent”, and “virtually nonexistent.”.
Refer above for the rest of the answer.
Anonymous says, “Your ‘recollections’ ARE inaccurate.”
What you say is a lie, whether you are willing to understand that or not. Admit it. You just enjoy hating southerners because you have some twitch in your head that has to have a scapegoat or a boogeyman because you can’t handle the truth.
I attended a Jesuit college in the Deep South. I was the only Hispanic on campus, spoke with a thick accent, was brown compared to the White Southerners, my freshman year someone called the campus police on me when they saw me walking across campus (a Jesuit priest had to vouch for me to the police and apologized for the incident), faculty had a difficult time understanding me, students thought my cultural traditions were strange, and I was called “Super Spic” by the Dean of Academic Affairs, a Jesuit PhD scientist. Not batting an eye, I called him Super Mick (he was Irish) and he loved it.
Racism is what it is. You either adjust to life’s adversities, become stronger or you die. Charles Darwin was right. When I graduated, my parents visited for their first time, and my professors told me they were looking forward to meeting them. There was only one problem: my parents spoke no English. So it was with delight for me to see scholarly professors converse with humble, uneducated Cubans who did not understand a word they were saying, as everyone nodded, smiled and pretended to understand each other. When I attended Aviation Officer Candidate School in the United States Navy, NAS Pensacola, FL, I had a USMC Drill Instructor who would take every opportunity to insult me as a Hispanic. He often called me “Little Fidel”, “Fidel’s Commie spy”, a “wetback” who “deserved to be taught a lesson” and dropped me for punitive physical training in front of my battalion, so as to alienate me, just to see if he could get a rise out of me. Never worked. People noticed, I became Section Leader. This all happened in the Deep South. To cope I would often think to myself, “one day my English will be better than yours, imbécil“.
As an immigrant, you learn to embrace the good things about America, the opportunities and the freedom. Still, there are lots of missing gaps in my knowledge of America. I am somewhat embarrassed to confess to Cindy below that I know nothing about Lady Bird. Americana culture prior to 1990s is very alien to me. Americans will never understand what it is like for immigrants to be fluent in multiple languages, to have each foot in a different culture, live 2 separate lives, and still be embraced by both audiences. Im sure as a Muslim some of this resonates with you, Diogenes.
Still I try to keep up, not hold a grudge, and forgive. None of us are perfect. My Academic Dean, in spite of his comment, was an excellent male Catholic role model to me. America is a great country in spite of its politicians and some Americans.
Estovir, your story reminds of an incident of mine, when I was a recent graduate, B.S.Eng., M.S.E.E., of that bastion of selectivity, the California Institute of Technology. Even with my beard I was hired at a supergrade salary by a large aerospace company in the Los Angeles area.
I needed some information from an older and long time engineer, so I went over to his office. As I entered, he said “What can I do for you, Castro?”. I looked down at him seated there, his bald pate obvious. “Nikta!” I replied, opening my arms wide as if to embrace him. He turned bright red.
I later overheard that he had transferred to another part of the company. I had never mentioned my exchange with him to any of the others in the company.
If it makes you feel better, I knew essentially nothing about Lady Bird Johnson and still don’t. Nor do I care.
You guys are both amazing–in all the right ways 🙂
I am guessing that you have never lived in or bin to the south.
I numbered things because it is apparent that your critical thinking skills are poor.
“ 1)America is a multicultural society and
2)probably is the least racist among them,
3providing equal rights to minorities not seen in other nations.”
Which of these is wrong? When you finish, explain why you think you are correct.
“Racism is still a big thing in the south. You’re wrong.”
No, but I note you don’t provide details. Is that because, intellectually, you have a problem?
You write: “Not in the south. They are hanging on to their racism…”
I assume we are dealing with the racism of whites towards blacks in the south. Do blacks have to sit in the back of the bus? Are they not offered jobs because they are black? Are they denied entry to schools because of their race? Are they being lynched because they are black? Have you not seen mixed marriages and relationships?
Get real. Who is “hanging on”. to racism? Today, Caucasians, Asians, and others are denied entry to schools and jobs based on their race. Who is doing that? The Democrat Party. VP Harris says hurricane relief aid should go to minorities. Blacks want exclusive clubs that others are not permitted to have. Biden was a racist and today is practicing racism in the reverse.
Racism was disappearing. When a black Democrat won the Presidency, we saw an uptick in racist ideas. Blacks account for ~14% meaning Obama obtained a lot of white, Latino, and Asian votes. Yet there seems to be friction by blacks toward whites, Latinos, Asians, and others. The racism we are seeing today is coming from the other side. That racism is promoted by Democrats who believe blacks and Latinos can’t care for themselves. You are probably one of those racist Democrats who believe that.
Racism will always exist, but much of that is bias, a desire to be with familiar people, or ignorance. You are ignorant and, based on your questions, probably a racist.
Thank you, Allen, for defending the vast majority of southerners, who are honest people and want the best for everybody. This slanderous Anonymous really infuriated me with his reverse bigotry.
The Mexican voter ID card requires it have your fingerprint too. The National voter registration database has everyone’s fingerprint that matches the card issued. We need that.
A bit of sanity from you.
Surprisingly I am going to disagree.
We do need laws that require voters to present government issued photo ID.
We do not need voter registration databases or national voter registration – and we do not want it.
Given that a state has a government issued photo ID law, there is no need for voter registration or voter registration databases – which are largely corrupt anyway.
Voter Registration databases only purpose in states that have and enforce voter ID is to determine which primary you can vote in.
That can be handled multiple ways.
First States should not run party primaries. That is none of the states business.
If we are still going to have state run primaries, we can instead have “jungle” primaries where must anyone can run, and the top 2 candidates go on to a general election.
Frankly I would rather see multiple rounds of runnoff rather than ranked choice voting. Have an early election, where anyone who can get signatures for 1% of the prior elections vote can run, if a candidate wins 51% of the vote – they are elected. If not eliminate the bottom 1/3 of the field and hod a runnoff. Continue the process until a candidate gets 51% of the vote.
51% is important. That means you must win by atleast 2%, it is very very hard to have that much fraud.
Regardless, the point is we do not need voter registration databases – either state wide or national. We can use existing government photo ID from mulitple sources. Drivers license, state ID card, passport, military ID.
Third World countries in Latin America & the Caribbean require a government issued Voter Registration Card so that citizens can vote in elections. Voting is also compulsory.
Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua do not because they are Marxist. Any similarity to Democrats like Stacey Abrams, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Marc Elias, etc, is not a coincidence.
Democrats think Hispanics like me, blacks, and immigrants are too stupid, too incompetent or incapable of acquiring a government issued voter registration card with a photograph. This is what they did in their original country. These same groups have government cards to receive medical care, retrieve their prescriptions at pharmacies and cash checks.
Democrats long for the days when they kept slaves on their plantation, where slaves made them feel superior and important. Unless of course if people of color arrived on Martha’s Vineyard, in which case the National Guard will escort them to the border of their island and fling them onto a ferry to take them elsewhere.
“I’ll have them n******* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
Estovir…..Thumbs up!
I loved Lady Bird, but couldn’t stand Lyndon.
He married her for her money, which should come as no surprise.
There’s nothing he would not and could not manipulate.
I forgot you are a Texan, and I know nothing about Lady Bird. She was wealthy but he used her for her money? So he was a racist and a misogynist. Quite the pig that Democrats idolized. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden…Next you will tell me Democrats had US Senators who were KKK members! oh wait…
Robert Caro’s Blind Spot
Why does the exhaustive biographer overlook Lyndon Johnson’s virulent misogyny?
https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/lyndon-johnson-robert-caro-affairs-misogyny.html
then there is this gem:
Why Lyndon Johnson, a truly awful man, is my political hero
Jack Bernhardt
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/22/lyndon-johnson-anniversary-death-awful-man-my-political-hero
Wow. Just wow. No wonder they want people voting without Govt Issued Voter ID Cards, to fabricate fake ballots to nonexisting voters.
Estovir……before Honestlawyermostly went into the Peace Corps, and then law school, he was a Capitol Hill policeman in DC. He and the other DC cops were given the tag numbers of LBJ’s girlfriends and were told not to pull them over, etc.
“Bird” was such a gracious lady….a true Southern woman with a beautiful Southern accent to match, from Karnack, Tx. That North East part of Texas was very “Southern” more than Texan. That’s why she was tough, but genteel. Karnack was right across the Louiisiana border from Caddo Parish, La., where my family and I were born.
The gorgeous wildflowers of Texas that adorn our highways today are a lasting contribution from Lady Bird.
When she died, those of us who loved her, lined Congress Ave. in Austin, and tossed Texas wildflowers on her hearse as it passed on its way to her ranch in the Hill Country.
that is a great story, Cindy. I wish I knew more about her. Do you have any recommendations as to biographies on Lady Bird without the focus of her 250 pound gorilla? I have always associated LBJ with JFK and JFK with how he dropped the ball on Bay of Pigs invasion, meaning I never cared for either one of them. Maybe Lady Bird deserves a fair shake?
You are a great story teller. Pope Francis often speaks on how the youth need the storytelling, the wisdom, the example of the elderly, who have become discarded by society. The elderly have so much to offer the young yet our throw away culture, tied to Pro-Abortionists, have relegated the elderly to nursing homes, euthanasia and other deadly practices. I hope you put yourself out there with your immediate surroundings. You have great insight due, in part, to your lived experience and knowledge of history.
Pope Francis: The wisdom of the elderly can save us from the carefree world of corruption
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/03/16/pope-francis-elderly-corruption-242606
Estovir…You are so kind! Thank you.
I have always enjoyed doing “sing-alongs” at assisted living and nursing homes. As I continue that, I realize the elderly are now my peers! When did that happen!? 🙂 Seriously, my belief has always been that those who love working with old people, are those who deeply loved their own grandparents. I adored mine!
I’ll check with my Austin buddies about a Lady Bird’s biographer. Liz Carpenter,(now deceased) Lady Bird’s press sec’y at the White House before and after, was an “acquaintance” of ours….. sang at our parties, etc. Her claim to fame is that she wrote the two sentence statement Lyndon made on the plane in Dallas as he was sworn in. Two of our close friends in Austin took turns being Liz’ driver and so were around Lady Bird alot. They were so lucky! Hopefully, they’ll know which biography is a good one.
She was born Claudia Taylor. Honestlawyer’s real last name is also Taylor…I’m hoping someday I’ll find a connection between the two families.
Again, I deeply appreciate your kind remarks. I’m just a housewife/granny with a BME degree!
“Democrats think Hispanics like me, blacks, and immigrants are too stupid, too incompetent or incapable of acquiring a government issued voter registration card with a photograph. ”
Can such ideas be called racist?
There are some people who do not have a government issued ID so I think the idea of some voting proposals is to allow alternative forms of ID to vote like a utility bill for example. Are people OK with that?
There are some people who do not have….
….food, shelter, clothing in America, thus government welfare programs are a failure, so shut them down, using your extremism.
Outlier cases are just that. One never makes prudential judgements nor public policies based on outliers. If someone wants to vote, they can get the required instruments mandated gratis, just like they got the required instruments to get a utility bill in their name, as you suggest.
Govt issued Voter ID Cards guarantee fair and just elections. Democrats can not win elections unless if they cheat. Why hide your adoration of Marxism? Just admit it. Its not like you are living in Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua who offer your idyllic Marxist utopia. We get it.
Are people OK with that?
Sea lioning is not a good look.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on alternative voter ID. Not sure how my comment and question have anything to do with Marxism.
It is part of the Marxist Revolutionary tactic. Break society apart with non-existent issues to create discension.
I know many people that came to this country with only the shirt on their back. They all have ID. Surveys have been taken and many minority individuals consider the implications you are making to be insulting, and they are right.
In some states one can get ID from the DMV. It is not that difficult. When you use a credit card at Walmart and are asked for ID, do you hand them your utility bill?
It’s my understanding that some people don’t have government ID —this does not involve any insult or implication. My experience is retail stores now do not ask for an Id when using a credit card. I think that changed when the shopper started putting the card in the machine instead of handing it to the cashier.
See how far you can get without an ID. It’s hard. Try flying a plane, renting an apartment, getting a mortgage, etc. I consider it a ridiculous argument.
it is likely one is illegal or did something to hide their identity if they can’t get an ID. We do not have to adjust a system of 330 Million people for that individual.
There is a paper trail for everyone. There are not many born in a forest who live off the land and only return to civilization to vote.
There are some people who do not have a government issued ID
I have not heard of any State the does not issue a non-drivers license ID. for free. Since it is almost impossible to function without presenting an ID, it ‘s a myth, ID is a impediment to voting.
Jonathan: Now that we have discussed the Delaware case let’s move on to a subject dear to my heart–Donald Trump. I know, the MAGA supporters in this blog cry foul when I bring up the Trumpster. And you have studiously avoided the subject of Trump’s legal problems so, I guess, it’s my job to cover the latest news in Trumpworld.
According to the NY Times a “rift” has been opened among Trump’s lawyers over all those docs Trump took back to Mar-a-Lago. One lawyer has been “frozen out” because he suggested closer cooperation with DOJ. NARA has indicated there may be other materials Trump is holding closely–maybe at Trump Tower or another of his properties. The FBI is pursuing this line of investigation. So who is the lawyer who has suggested more cooperation with the DOJ? None other then Christopher Kise–the guy Trump had to give an up front $3 million retainer. Kise suggested Trump agree to a “forensic team” to find any other docs Trump may have secreted away. Trump balked at Kise’s suggestion and that is why he has been sidelined. There is a lot of speculation about why Kise made his suggestion. I think I know so here is my version of the narrative between Kise and his client:
Trump: Chris, your idea is crazy! Why would I do that? What you don’t understand is that I “declassified” all the docs that ended up here at
Mar-a-Lago. Besides the FBI got everything when they raided my home. I mean, why would I have anything else? I know, the left-wing
press published a photo of an empty “Top Secret” folder in a display case at my Trump Tower. But that folder was fake!
Kise: Donald. It really doesn’t matter the classification of those documents. Under the law you weren’t entitled to keep anything–doesn’t
matter how that material got here or how it was marked. What I am suggesting is that we cooperate with the DOJ by returning anything
else you may still have. That way we can demonstrate you have nothing to hide. By indicating our “good faith”‘ maybe I can get the DOJ to
back off prosecuting you. For God’s sake, I’m just trying to keep you out of jail!i
Trump was having none of it. As he looked out his office window on the manicured grounds of Mar-a-Lago Trump mused: “I’m still the legitimate President. Who was it who suggested I hire this Kise wise guy? Where is my Roy Cohn when I need him? I get to decide. And I know Clarence Thomas will protect me.”
I know. I would make a great “fiction” writer. But then does anyone have a better idea about why Kise would make his suggestion to Trump? I think it’s because Kise knows his client’s continued obstruction in the DOJ’s criminal investigation is making matters worse and will make it more likely than not his client will be indicted.
Kise should just walk away and just take his $3 million. There’s a reason why so many smart lawyers won’t work with Trump. Do you honestly believe the other lawyers will get paid when this is over? He’s broke. All he has is his real estate holdings and MAGA merch sales. All these lawsuits and lawyers are siphoning money so fast I wouldn’t be surprised if he declared bankruptcy when the feds come to collect on his IRS fraudulent transactions.
Why is it that you presume to know all kinds of things about others that you can not possibly know.
Trump has billions in real estate – that is not “broke”, it is not even cash poor, Trump likely takes in 10’s of millions a month and lays out tens of millions a month. He has built up a political war chest that I beleive is over 100M.
Contra your claims he has had no problems getting excellent lawyers to represent him. Have not yet heard of one not getting paid.
He has ultimately won every legal contest against him in the past 6 years. The best of the left have been after his scalp for a long time, and come home with nothing. Mueller wasted 2 years, 10’s of millions and accomplished nothing beyond further discrediting DOJ/FBI and the left.
Regardless, are you openly admitting that the goal of left wing nuts is to bankrupt him ?
Certainly that is what you are after elsewhere.
I can not make sense of those on the left. According to you it is protected free speech and protest, to bang on the doors of the supreme court, to stalk them to their homes. to camp in front of buildings on wall street, to fire bomb federal courthouses, in portland, to burn churches near the white house, to throw rocks at park police, to try to breakdown the white house security fence, to fire bomb pro-life clinics.
But it is crime warranting 10 years in prison to sit in at an abortion clinic, or to push away someone who is attacking your son.
People who never entered the capital have been sentenced to 10 years for touching a police officer who was violating the law.
While the lawyers who firebombed occupied police cars in NYC are facing 18months or less.
But for double standards you have no standards.
Alas, alas for you
Hypocrites that you be.
If Trump is so wealthy, then why does he have to borrow money constantly to pay off existing loans as they come due? That’s what he has done for years. Do you really think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Elon Musk have to keep borrowing money to keep their businesses afloat? Trump’s properties are all under water–he has over-leveraged them by exaggerating their value to get higher loan amounts–which is one grounds for the civil lawsuit filed against him in New York. Then, he also under-valued them for tax purposes, which is another way he cheats. The properties are worth less than the loans that they secure. I don’t know where you get the idea that Trump always wins lawsuits, which is something he lies about all of the time. One example–the HUD housing discrimination lawsuit filed against him for race discrimination. Based on multiple complaints that Trump properties turned away black people and lied about available units, a white woman HUD employee went to a Trump rental office to rent an apartment. She was given an application to fill out and bring back. On the way out the door, a black male HUD employee entered and asked for a rental application–he was told there were no units available. Trump entered into a consent decree to resolve this case–meaning he admitted the truth of the claims–and paid out lots of cash to settle the matter in addition to agreeing not to engage in this conduct in the future. He claims he “won” this case, which is a lie. Then, there’s Trump University–$25 million payout for fraud. Just two examples. And, your spin on the Mueller investigation is just as wrong. The “Left” doesn’t promote lawlessness, either–you must also watch Fox constantly like Karen S, because she also repeats this lie. Want to talk about a Republican hypocrite–how about Herschel Walker for starters?
Natacha, is that you?
The choice for voters is Make America Great Again or Make America Weird and Dangerous. Vote accordingly.
“If Trump is so wealthy, then why does he have to borrow money constantly to pay off existing loans as they come due?”
It would help if your statements were accurate.
Elon Musk is near certain to have to borrow almost 10 times Trump’s entire net worth to buy Twitter – yet Musk is worth far far more than he is borrowing – so why does Musk have to borrow money. For one thing SEC regulations forbid him from selling large blocks of his Tesla stock.
Trump is in the business of real estate. That is a highly leveraged (that means involves lots of borrowing) business model.
If Trump’s net worth is $3B then it is likely that he owns 15B in realestate and has 12B in loans against it.
That is how that works.
I bought an apartment building for 165K in 2009. I had to pay about 35K, and the rest was mortgaged.
That is a quite normal way to invest in real estate. Today the property is worth 400K+ and the mortgage is down to 60K.
If I were younger I would refinance the property – i.e. remortgage it as Trump does, at a value of 400K I can get a 320K mortgage with no money down. I would take that 320K and buy about 1.6M in additional realestate. My net worth would decline very slightly – closing costs etc.
But I would be holding 2M in property – not 400K, and in 20 years that 2M would be MINE.
“That’s what he has done for years.”
Yup that is the norm in business. Espeicially in the real estate business.
I managed a 3.5M in sales business for a couple of decades in the 80’s and 90’s. We had a $400K line of credit. That meant anytime I needed I could borrow 400K from the bank without even asking. I was pre-approved.
” Do you really think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Elon Musk have to keep borrowing money to keep their businesses afloat?”
Absolutely. As noted about it is near certain Musk will have to borrow money to buy Twitter.
I am sure that Tesla has tens of billions of dollars in outstanding loans all the time.
“Trump’s properties are all under water–he has over-leveraged them by exaggerating their value to get higher loan amounts–which is one grounds for the civil lawsuit filed against him in New York.”
Only in your and NY AG James head. One of the many things I do today is due dilligence for the real estate Market. I have never had Trump property. But I have done due dilligence on many Manhattan properties – one a 70 story building on Park Ave. As well as properties owned by Amazon.
I will absolutely guarantee you that NO ONE finances commercial real estate in the US from a value of 250K up to multiple billions, without the Bank doing EXTENSIVE due dilligence. And Deutche Bank is one of the most conservative banks in the world.
The left claims Banks in the US quit dealing with Trump – that is nonsense. Trump operates at a level where He gets to deal with the most respected banks in the world. Trump is dealing with DB because he has sufficient assets and credit that he CAN.
You and the left play with words like Over leveraged without understanding what they really mean.
If you are truly over leveraged – you can not borrow AT ALL.
That was a part of what happened with the financial crisis. US banks with collapsing home values found themselves overleveraged and as a result the credit markets int he US seized.
But you can ignore everything I have posted above, because there is a much simpler reason that you are wrong.
If Trump is over leveraged – he is out of business. If Trump is over leveraged – he is bankrupt.
You can believe that might be true for a few months. The claims regarding Trump’s finances have gone on for years.
If they were True, Trump’s businesses would have collapsed long ago.
That has not happened – therefore the people feeding you this nonsense are liars.
“he also under-valued them for tax purposes”
There is litterally no such thing.
Do you own a home ? If so did you set your tax appraisal value ?
No one anywhere does that.
Tax appraised values are set by GOVERNMENT.
The way that is done is arcane and varies through the country though the NORM is that tax appraised values is ALWAYS undervalued.
“which is another way he cheats.”
Except anyone who knows anything about tax appraisals knows better.
“The properties are worth less than the loans that they secure.”
Outside of the period from 2006 through about 2009 that rarely happens anywhere in the US.
Even during that period it did not happen in commercial real estate.
Further whether you like it or not – every bank – from the one that wrote your home mortgage up through Deutsche Bank.
Does due dilligence for all loans – that means at a minimum they do an appraisal. For a 250K or more commercial building they do an independent appraisal, a property condition assessment, and an environmental site assessment. For multi-million dollar properties they do multiple versions of the above as well as many other independent assessments.
I can assure you there is zero chance that anyone has loaned Trump more money than his properties are worth.
anyone that tells you otherwise is lying.
“I don’t know where you get the idea that Trump always wins lawsuits, which is something he lies about all of the time.”
From the News – and not Fox. What FINAL court battle has Trump lost in the past 6 years ?
Did he have to Pay Stormy Danials anything ? When SDNY went after Cohen did they get Trump ? Did Mueller get Trump ?
Did anyone Get Trump on anything ? Many people have filed all kinds of lawsuits against Trump in the past 6 years.
He has lost intermediate matters – such as whether he has to provide his tax return in discovery. But there has not been a final win against him.
In most instance the cases get dropped.
“One example–the HUD housing discrimination lawsuit filed against him for race discrimination. Based on multiple complaints that Trump properties turned away black people and lied about available units, a white woman HUD employee went to a Trump rental office to rent an apartment. She was given an application to fill out and bring back. On the way out the door, a black male HUD employee entered and asked for a rental application–he was told there were no units available.”
That was 50 years ago, it involved his fathers properties, and I doubt you have the facts correct.
” Trump entered into a consent decree to resolve this case–meaning he admitted the truth of the claims–and paid out lots of cash to settle the matter in addition to agreeing not to engage in this conduct in the future.”
That is not what a consent decree means.
“He claims he “won” this case, which is a lie.”
Whenever government settles with a private party that pretty much means the private party won.
“Then, there’s Trump University–$25 million payout for fraud.”
Nope it was a settlement, and a quite small one.
I am much smaller than Trump. I was sued for religious discrimination, racial discrimination, age discrimination, and health discrimination.
In the midst of the case when it turned out that I had been quietly paying the plantiff’s health insurance after he refused to Cobra it, the ALJ talked to me and my lawyer privately and asked if we would settle. He said the case was essentially over and we would win, but it would go on for atleast 3 more days. I settled for what legal fees would have cost for another 3 days – did I lose ? I call it a win. Did I have to pay alot of money in legal fees as a small settlement for something I never did ? Sure. But I paid less than I would have had I won.
“Just two examples.”
Both settlements, not losses.
“And, your spin on the Mueller investigation is just as wrong.”
Nope.
“The “Left” doesn’t promote lawlessness”
They did not conduct a lawless election in 2020 ?
They did not riot, thorughout the summer in 2020 ?
They did not riot for something like 180 days straight in Portland ?
They did not fire bomb and vandalize over 50 pro-life clinics in the past few months ?
They did not burn down parts of an assembly space at Berkley to stop Milo Yanopolis from speaking ?
They did not assualt and injure a professor in a riot when Charles Murray was invited to speak ?
They did not shoot up the Republican congressional baseball team ?
I can go on and on.
Just recently 2 lawyers who fire bombed a police car in NYC in 2020, are receiving an 18month sentence.
While a J6 protestor who did noth go into the capital received a 10 year sentence for putting his hand on the wrist of a capital police officer at a baricade.
The left is absolutely lawless.
“either–you must also watch Fox constantly like Karen S”
Don;t watch fox, but it does not matter. The FACTS are that the left is lawless.
“because she also repeats this lie.”
Karen is telling the Truth and you are lying.
If Karen’s source is Fox – you probably should watch more Fox and less of whatever you are watching.
“Want to talk about a Republican hypocrite–how about Herschel Walker for starters?”
First I am not a republican. I am a libertarian.
I vote for the most libertarian choice on the ballot. Sometimes that is an actual libertarian. Sometimes that is a republican, sometimes that is a democrat.
Next, What about Walker ? There is a small possibility that sometime in the past he may have paid for an abortion for a girlfriend.
Pro-life voters can decide on their own if they still wish to vote for him.
You are prochoice – should this make you vote for him ?
Unlike Warnock he did not beat her up and lie about it. Unlike Warnock he is not a minister.
Walker is a Heisman trophy winner, an incredible pro football player. A sucessful business person – even if he may exaggerate his own success a bit. Biden has been caught in multiple instances of plagarism over the years. If Walker is less than perfect – that means he is human.
And why are you attacking him ? I though you think getting abortions is OK ?
Aren’t you being hypocritical going after Walker for something you do not even think is wrong ?
There is too my knowledge no federal court case pending against Trump.
Trump initiated the FL case against DOJ.
DOJ has not named Trump as a target or even a subject and has not indicted him.
There is no IRS claim against him.
NY AG James’s case is ludicrously stupid and will go down in flames.
All the claims against Trump were primarily efforts to subpeona documents in the hope of finding actual crimes.
That hope has repeatedly been dashed. Mueller went through millions of pages of documents.
When is it that you left wing nuts are going to grasp that you have borrowed up Trump’s ass so far you are coming out his mouth and you have found nothing.
Trump lives rent free in your brain, and all that does is make you look bat$hit crazy.
But, there’s all of the fundraising from the disciples that he can spend however he wants until he declares his candidacy, which is why he isn’t declaring. Part of the millions he has raised is going to pay the monthly bill for Melania’s clothes designer, but he can, and has, used it to finance lawyers whose advice he is ignoring. And, I agree: get the retainer up front, because he won’t pay later on.
Just another example of Trump’s stupidity–Kise is a good lawyer, which, to Trump, means he would lie, bribe, suborn perjury, and do anything necessary to “win at all costs”. Kise isn’t about to lose his law license to promote a lie for the likes of Donald Trump. Trump is apparently unaware that the government knows exactly what documents are missing–the agency that generated the documents keeps a digital record, so they know what is still missing. There’s no way Trump can evade these simple facts. He already got one lawyer in trouble for lying about turning over all of the documents, but Kise isn’t about to follow suit. The best course for Trump would be to follow his lawyer’s advice and turn the documents over, but, again, stupidity and ego always prevail when it comes to Trump. I surmise he took the documents to use as leverage–to threaten to give them to his buddy Putin in exchange for not getting prosecuted for tax evasion or other federal crimes–or, maybe, to somehow force his way back into office. Then, there’s the bragging rights–it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he would flash them around at Mar A Lago parties to show off–“lookie what I got –Top Secret papers”.. We alrady know that he took a call at the dinner table at Mar A Lago and discussed highly sensitive confidential information in the presence of guests–again, just to show off. He was told not to take the documents, but did so anyway because NO ONE tells “the Donald” what he can or cannot do. That’s narcissism. We can just hope that some housekeeper, landscaper, pool boy or other person hasn’t stolen them already. If that has happened, he has to go to prison. We cannot allow that to stand.
You make lots of stupid presumptions.
First you presume that purported leaks are true – despite the fact that such leaks would lead to disbarment, unemployment and no one willing to hire you – and in some instance criminal prosecution.
Next you presume the only differences between lawyers must be about unethical conduct, rather that strategy and tactics.
Trump is fighting what is both a criminal, civil and political battle in the courts.
It is highly unlikely that all of Trump’s attorney’s and Trump are on the exact same page with respect to each of those priorities.
Further given that Trump has the resources he would be best served if each of his major lawyers had Different views on these priorities.
Just look at the viewpoints expressed here.
Those like you are waiting hope against hope for the long awaited proof of actual criminal conduct on the part of Trump.
You have assumed that was true – without evidence for 6 years. And now you are arguing – as you have dozens of times before that the moment for a successful criminal prosecution is at hand.
Others of us are paying little attention to the criminal case, we expect – like all other criminal claims regarding Trump that it will fail.
We are used to exhorbitant claims by the left that fizzle when they come in contact with reality.
We are hoping that as more of the malfeasance of the DOJ/WH/FBI is exposed that even the incredibly thick skulled on the left will finally be able to grasp the political malfeasance here. That maybe this time it will be too much hypocracy for you to cope with.
Need I remind you that you impeached Trump on flimsier evidence than you have on Trump on the claim that presidents can not target their political opponents. Trump is CLEARLY Biden’s political opponent. Aparently the standard does not hold if the political target of the president is on the right.
“Trump is fighting what is both a criminal, civil and political battle in the courts.”
Lawyers are knowledgeable in our legal system and not trained to deal with various business aspects, political issues, etc. The successful businessman has more knowledge than most lawyers about business and negotiating, though some lawyers have learned on their own, developing specialized expertise. Complex cases need a worldly person who is an expert in the law and can learn from each experience.
The pundits Gigi seems to listen to are those able to speak and create arguments, but most of them would fall apart against another person who thinks instead of looking for spurious arguments.
Gigi has fallen into a deep hole she will never be able to climb out. John, you have framed the situation very well.
My point is not that Trump is brilliant – though I suspect he is. People do not succeed at as many different things as he has without incredible intelligence.
My point is that there are numerous competing goals and objectives.
If I were in his shoes I would have multiple expensive talented lawyers and I would expect them to have different priorities.
And in the end I would make the decisions. sometimes following ones advice sometimes another.
Even the decision to follow one lawyers advice over another does NOT mean disrespect for that other.
It just means my priorities and my choice and my risk benefit analysis AFTER hearing his best advice was different.
Every person in court should have and listen to their lawyer(s). but the ultimate decisions are YOURS not theirs.
They will leave the court room slightly wealthier for the time they spent. You will be the one who will reap the benefits or pay the cost.
Listen – actually listen to their advice. But in the end you must make your own decisions.
Trump has a world class track record for making decisions.
John, I am sure Trump is getting advice from many different attorneys. I have used many types of attorneys. They don’t always recognize my concerns. In one case, an excellent attorney didn’t understand what I was getting at. He asked me to write a provision for the contract. I did, and then he understood. He rewrote it using legalese and added it to the contract. He said he would use that idea from then on. On another contract, I added a clause, and this contract ended up in court. The judge didn’t think the contract was great except for one paragraph that won the case. That was the paragraph I inserted. This has happened repeatedly. It is not that I have exceptional knowledge or that the lawyers weren’t smart. My knowledge comes from experiences they haven’t lived with and don’t have. That provides me a leg up.
I trust Trump’s gut. He knows what is important and what he wants. People call him stupid because he does certain things that look bad or won’t win. They do not know how to deal. For instance, he is asking the SC to prevent the FBI from continuing to read the classified records. That will go to Clarence Thomas but I will be surprised if Thomas sides with Trump. Trump will be surprised as well (and Trump knows it isn’t important). This is all part of the dance and perhaps a delaying tactic in this case.
I have fired numerous attorneys for various reasons and then handled the problem without an attorney. I don’t think I have ever lost, but that is because before I enterred negotiations, I established a solid foundation.
One clause I always put into a contract was a definition of sorts: As good as or better than … Not difficult, but it always provides me an advantage. When I built my home, that was in the contract. A subcontractor who I was paying directly refused to sign the contract with that statement attached, but my main contractor told him he had to.
I have very similar experience with contracts.
Though I remember the advice of one attorney when we were dealing with a very difficult client and “the contract from hell”.
He told me to leave the contract alone. The contract was absymal, and that if things went to hell he could get us out of it trivially it was that bad.
But it would be harder if we tried to fix it.
But the critical advice was to think about this seriously. Contracts are to protect you from the unexpected. If you enter into a contract EXPECTING to get into a legal fight – DONT.
Either you trust the client – or you don’t. Do not get into business with people you do not trust. You can not fix that with a contract.
That applies to all this left wing nut nonsense regarding Trump.
He has been in business for a long time. bad things happen. over 60+ years the businesses that are mine or my families have only rarely been in court. Each of those experiences was disasterous and miserable and destructive – and atleast on paper we won every single one.
In nearly every single case we should have settled – badly at the start, We would have come out far better.
My father wasted the last 4 productive years of his carreer fighting in a legal fight that he ultimately won.
Every single time a conflict has gone to court – the right answer has always been – we never should have gone to work for that client.
And ALWAYS we knew that at the start.
I have been in far more conflicts that settled. Unknown to most people but by law an Architect on a project is roughly the equivalent of an ALJ.
I have had to adjudicate myriads of conflicts between owners and engineers and contractors. To do so I have had to know the law and the contract. And I have also needed to know how to problem solve. Almost every single one of these conflicts is not personal, and is not about trust. Most of the time the resolution is not in the law or the contract – though you must know the law and the contract to get there.
The entirety of free markets is about trading value for value. No one voluntarily agrees to anything else.
Free markets are nearly always win-win. Absolutely no one engages in exchange unless they expect to be better off at the end.
Conversely conflicts – whether inside or outside of courts are about not losing.
Anyway Trump has been successful in something like seven different careers. That is unheard of.
No one can have the extensive business life he has without conflicts. Without some enemies.
But he is still easily able to borrow billions of dollars. That quite litterally means the most fiscally conservative institutions in the world TRUST him. And they did not arrive at that via ouija boards.
The AG James lawsuit is ludicrously stupid.
But lets just assume for a moment that James claim is true. That Trump overvalued his properties and DB gave him loans in excess of the actual value of the properties. They are not ignorant. They know this and they did it anyway. They did it because they TRUST they will get repayed – which they did.
.”Do not get into business with people you do not trust. You can not fix that with a contract.”
…Unless you get the money upfront.
” and atleast on paper we won every single one.”
Get a larger first and last month deposit or have them sign over things that are valuable to them.
One can easily prevail in court. The hard part is the collection process.
“In nearly every single case we should have settled – badly at the start, We would have come out far better.”
When it is not a clear win or the other person will be a collection problem, the best option is to settle if possible. I had a serious problem where both sides had faults, and there was no way out. I hired a lawyer to let the other party know I was serious. Then I handled this very bitter and expensive problem between the two of us with giving and taking. We traded things neither of us cared about. After everything was over and was ready to leave town, he asked me out to lunch. People do not realize that legal difficulties do not mean personal difficulties if handled correctly. One always needs to know what the other needs. Frequently that need is inexpensive and leads to a lot of money in your pocket.
“The entirety of free markets is about trading value for value. ”
That is the name of the game, even in negotiations. Also, know your enemy. Make it a win for both parties.
We have some similarities in our experiences. Mine are not limited to real estate. Some are all over the map, but what can be used in one situation can be modified for another.
Trump clearly lives rent free in your mind.
With respect to all this inside baseball nonsense – why do you beleive NYT knows ? And why do you care ?
I would expect that any legal team with multiple star lawyers would have significant disagreements about strategy and tactics.
As fascinating as those might be to you – they are the business of those involved, and the ultimate decision is Trump’s.
Since you seem to like speculating as to what is in the minds of others.
I would suggest that these allegations that Trump has some other damning documents somewhere is evidence that DOJ/FBI did NOT turn up what they were hoping for.
Regardless, Trump and his team can decide that cooperation is the best approach – Trump’s legal team advised that during the collusion delusion nonsense. Trump excoriated the Mueller team publicly, ranted privately, but fully cooperated. Trump did not fight Mueller in court over anything, even though much of what they demanded they were not entitled to.
Cooperate, Don’t – that is a strategic and tactical decision that Trump and his team of lawyers get to make on their own.
I would further suggest to you that Trump is not behaving like someone worried about being prosecuted.
He is behaving like someone trying to use this to his best political advantage.
And that effects Strategy and tactics too.
Regardless, we can all choose to be fascinated by this if we want – if it is even true – while I do not doubt that Trump’s lawyers have strong differences of opinion – Trump should WANT that. I doubt that NYT reporting has any basis in fact. If there were leaks from Trump’s legal team or their staff, those would result in firing, disbarrment, and serious financial damages.
We have the same when we have alleged leaks from DOJ and FBI – actual leaks would be a crime. Conversely DOJ/FBI insiders LYING to the press is not a crime. A wise person would presume that insider information – leaks, from other the Trump team or the DOJ/FBI are all likely FALSE, or speculation. What they are NOT is something the leaker KNOWS to be true. If that were the case there would be severe consequences for the leakier.
Do not forget Reality Winner is in jail.
Real leakes – ones that are true are quite rare.
Jonathan: What is clear from the Delaware case is that the Dems want to expand the ability to vote but the GOP wants to do just the opposite. In states controlled by the GOP over 200 voter restriction laws have been proposed or passed. Georgia is just one example. This upsurge in voter restrictions has come after the 2020 election when Biden won due, in part, to a huge upsurge in mail-in voting caused by the Covid pandemic. Biden narrowly won in Georgia and now Trump could well be criminally charged for trying to get Georgia election officials to change the vote count. Doesn’t get more un-democratic then that!
So what is the GOP doing to prevent a repeat of 2020? In states controlled by the GOP they are limiting early-voting hours, eliminating or limiting the number of ballot drop-boxes and imposing other voting restrictions. In my conservative GOP controlled state you have to request an absentee ballot and it must be notarized–an unnecessary burden on those who don’t drive, have medical conditions and poor and Black voters. What the GOP wants to do is shift voting to in-person voting on election day. This causes long voting lines like we see in Georgia. The GOP game plan is to “shrink” the vote so it can retain minority rule. This is the most dramatic curtailment of ballot access since the late 19th century when Southern states effectively reversed the 15th Amendment by enacting poll taxes, literacy tests and other restrictions that virtually disenfranchised all Black men.
Now in California they have gone in the opposition direction by implementing “universal” voting by mail. It has worked well. Trump didn’t bother to challenge the results in 2020 in the Golden State. The House has passed its own version of “universal ” voting by mail bill but Republicans in the Senate have refused to go along. So, yes, Delaware needs to join California by changing the constitution so that every eligible voter can exercise one of the last remaining of our democratic rights!
“Jonathan: What is clear from the Delaware case is that the Dems want to expand the ability to vote but the GOP wants to do just the opposite.”
What is clear is that Democrats wish to dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens. They are trying to create votes, and vote on behalf of people unable or unwilling to vote. In that fashion, Democrats are criminals looking to destroy a great country that has done more for the world in recent memory than any other nation. Our system and abilities created a revolution that reduced starvation to billions of people. I won’t outline anything else America has done, but when I hear this type of foolishness from a person whose facts are generally wrong, I find it irritating.
S. Meyer is wrong. Really wrong.
I can see from your answer, that says nothing, you are an endangered species based on ignorance.
Then you should have no difficulty making an actual argument explaining why and how he is wrong
S. Meyer: I’m glad you find me “irritating”. Why do you think I’m in this blog? To “irritate” people like you who just regurgitate what they hear on Fox or read in some MAGA chatroom. You say that “Democrats wish to dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens”. You can’t be serious. So when I vote the Democratic ticket next month are you saying my intent is to “dilute” my Republican neighbor’s vote and for no other reason? And are you saying I am not also an “honest and hard-working citizen? More nonsense! Then you go on with more gibberish like claiming the “Democrats are criminals looking to destroy a great country…” and they “are trying to create votes on behalf of people unable or unwilling to vote”. Sounds like you have overdosed on the Trump cool-aid about how the Dems “stole” the 2020 election only won through “massive election fraud”. If this were true why did Trump lose all of the over 60 lawsuits he brought challenging the election results? Explain that one to me? And who was it who actually tried to “dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens”? It wasn’t the Democrats. It was Trump, John Eastman and Ginni Thomas, among others, who went from state to state, like Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and others, and tried to get the GOP to substitute Trump’s own slate of electors for those chosen by the voters. That was an attempt to “dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens”–in spades!
I can’t begin to describe how childish you sound. Don’t you have something better to do with your time instead of taking up valuable space in this blog?
“S. Meyer: I’m glad you find me “irritating”. Why do you think I’m in this blog?”
Dennis, you wouldn’t be irritating if you could hold an argument, get facts straight, and know what you are talking about. If you provided a sensible argument, I would be thrilled, but it already has been proven that you can’t debate. In the past, when I spent the time to provide facts, you ran away. You said we should limit our discussions to art, but I don’t think you know much about that either.
Unfortunately for you, I don’t regurgitate Fox. I get my news from multiple sources including the NYT. I also look at raw data, but to do that successfully, you have to be able to count and have critical thinking skills.
“You can’t be serious. So when I vote the Democratic ticket next month are you saying my intent is to “dilute” my Republican neighbor’s vote and for no other reason?
Not when you vote legally, but when you vote more than once, ballot traffic, or any other illegal thing of your choice proven to happen during 2020, and the proof keeps coming in.
“And are you saying I am not also an “honest and hard-working citizen? “
I don’t know if you are or not. I am not judging your job performance. I am judging the party you affiliate with that has lied and cheated. I hear the Biden’s are in legal trouble that will be formally presented, probably after the midterms.
I frequently deal with you like I do Natasha and skip reading the entire post. When it is fallacious at the beginning, it generally ends up worse at the end.
How many times does this garbage have to be debunked ?
How many times do you have to be proven wrong about pretty much everything before you stop and think and check your facts ?
” You say that “Democrats wish to dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens”. You can’t be serious. ”
We are.
“So when I vote the Democratic ticket next month are you saying my intent is to “dilute” my Republican neighbor’s vote and for no other reason? ”
Non-sequitur.
“And are you saying I am not also an “honest and hard-working citizen?”
Have no idea, but you certainly advocate for dishonesty.
““Democrats are criminals looking to destroy a great country…” and they “are trying to create votes on behalf of people unable or unwilling to vote”.”
When you can not get people to come to the polls to vote – they are unwilling to vote.
When you go lawless to get them to vote – you are “creating votes”.
“Sounds like you have overdosed on the Trump cool-aid about how the Dems “stole” the 2020 election only won through “massive election fraud”.”
Actually I think SM is channelling Stacy Abrams from 2016. Regardless, you could also read the Time magazine article describing many of the ways in which Democrats rigged the system to win the election. Of course Time was bragging and calling it “fortification”.
Regardless, if you – as democrats do, beleive that voters are so stupid that they can only be allowed to vote if you currate the news for them – then why do you bother with democracy at all ? If your objective is to control what voters can see and hear so that they will vote as you want them too – why bother with elections at all ?
I have no idea whether the recent news story that Hunter Biden will be indicted on gun charges tax fraud and money laundering is true.
What I do know is that it was election fraud to bury the story.
I also know that the people who burried that story – also burried all the stories about actual election fraud.
And that these are the people you beleive.
I also know that the people who engaged in the conduct described in the time story on the election – a story that essentially has the left bragging about many of the immoral things they did to win the election, people who would do those things – are capable of election fraud. coercing or inducing voters, manufacturing ballots, and massive ballot harvesting.
“If this were true why did Trump lose all of the over 60 lawsuits he brought challenging the election results? Explain that one to me?”
For the same reason that state courts like the PA supreme court concocted their own unconstitutional election laws from whole cloth immediately before the election.
The courts were covering their ass. They allowed a lawless election to take place. By doing so they were complicit in the fraud.
Regardless none of these courts allowed discovery. None of these courts held an evidentiary hearing. None of the courts allowed the presentation and cross examination of actual evidence.
Every single one of these decisions rested on legal doctrines like mootness (i.e. the election was over), lack of any remedey – the courts have no power to fix the issue even if proven, and standing – your not the right person to bring the suit.
Yes – like nearly every judicual decision – including others cited today the court filled the decisions with speculation that has no legal meaning at all.
Regardless, the court joined the media, and social media and the left post(and pre) election in destroying their own credibility.
I would note that YOU – following Rahm Emanuels infamous dictate “never let a crisis go to waste” used an epidemic that as early as may of 2020 was self evidently beyond the ability of humans to control in any way, as the basis to completely transform society in innumerable ways that had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic.
Recent studies are now showing higher rates of hospitalization and death in children. Why ? Because 2 years of masks, lockdowns. social distancing have left them with weakened immune systems.
Why are we supposed to beleive you – or the courts on elections, when you lied about the collusion delusion, you lied about Trump to impeach him – it is self evident at this point that there was far more than enough damning evidence regarding the Biden family for Trump to DEMAND an investigation from DOJ, From FBI, From Zelenski, from Everyone. In fact it is so self evident that DOJ was investigating Biden and had been for over a year unbenownced to Trump at the time. Regardless, just another thing that you all lied about.
And you have lied over and over about Covid. Now you are lying about the economy.
You lied to us about Biden’s competence.
We have listened to idiots telling us all over and over that Trump is a liar ? For what ? Idiocy like – well mexico is not paying for the wall ?
Can you tell many ANYTHING of consequence that Biden and democrats have NOT lied about ?
You lied over and over and over about all kinds of things to win an election – why should anyone believe you would not commit fraud ?
“And who was it who actually tried to “dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens”? It wasn’t the Democrats.”
Yup democrats. Ballot harvesting dilutes legitimate votes.
“It was Trump, John Eastman and Ginni Thomas, among others, who went from state to state, like Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and others, and tried to get the GOP to substitute Trump’s own slate of electors for those chosen by the voters.”
Not Trumps slate – the legislatures slate. Please read the constitution.
“That was an attempt to “dilute the votes of honest and hard-working citizens”–in spades!”
In every single swing state there are STILL atleast 100K or move ballots without chain of custody – i.e. we do not know where they come from.
The law requires that chain of custody must be maintained for all ballots – this is a requirement to prevent the insertion of fraudulent ballots.
You claim fraud sufficient to flip the election can not be proven – while I think it can. I KNOW that far more than enough lawlessness and violations of election laws occured that the results of the voting can not and should not be trusted.
In a presidential election where the margin of victory of one candidate is less than 45,000 ballots total accross 3 states and about 20M people voted for one candidate and 20M people voted for the other – then YES, it is perfectly acceptable for the legislature to settle the election.
Further it is foollish, idiotic to be claiming that the votes of only democrats are being dilluted, when the outcome of an election is decided by a razor thin margin and there are hundreds of thousands of ballots with problems.
Those on the left like you fixated on the fact that the AZ audit – one that you fought tooth and nail, proved that the Dominion Voting Machines in AZ correctly counted the ballots – while ignoring the fact that in an election won by 10,000 votes – over 900,000 ballots had problems. over 250,000 had serious problems, and almost 50,000 ballots were cast by less than 13,000 actual people.
The last issue alone is ample reason for the legislature to act.
“I can’t begin to describe how childish you sound.”
Correct – you are either incredibbly childish or a liar.
Dennis,
In the unlikely event you are correct about the 2020 election, it would be the first thing ever that I am aware of that you have been right about.
Why should you be believed ?
NY Times now claims an indictment of Hunter Biden for Tax evasion, gun crimes, and money laundering is coming anyday.
I do not personally beleive that – not that Hunter should not be indicted for that and more. Not that it hasn’t been self evident that he should have been indicted since 2015, But I do not beleive that this administration will allow that. Further any indictment of Hunter requires a Special Counsel to investigate Joe Biden. And there is zero doubt at this point that Joe Biden was involved in All or nearly all of Hunter Biden’s dealings.
While Hunter Biden is a pretty disreputable scum bag, those are a dime a dozen. The issue has never been Hunter. The issue from the start has always been the involvement of the Vice President and now president of the Untied States.
As Richard Nixon said – the american people are entitled to know their president is not a crook.
Regardless, one of the LESSOR things that democrats have been morally corrupt about was the egregious misconduct of the Biden’s.
There does not seem to be a thing you have accused Trump of that Joe Biden has not done.
Colluding with foriegn govenrments – check.
Being compromised by foreign governments – check.
Tax evasion – check.
Personally profiting off his position as president and vice president – check.
Using the power of the presidency to go after political enemies – check.
Fascism – check.
Inciting violence – check.
Obstruction of justice – check.
….. – check.
Dennis says: “I’m glad you find me “irritating”. Why do you think I’m in this blog? To “irritate” people like you…”
Success! You are an irritating commenter. You and your regurgitated Democrat talking points are laughably, predictably, irritating. And usually wrong. Well done you.
Is there any other country in the world that conducts its elections by universal mail in ballot?
no…look at the Carter Center report on Africa and Latin America…1 day, in person, with ID
“What is clear from the Delaware case is that the Dems want to expand the ability to vote but the GOP wants to do just the opposite.”
False. Every legitimate voter has the ability to vote in every state. Each of us can take our drivers license to the polls on election day and cast our ballot.
It is correct that Democrats seek to make it even easier than that to vote, and Republicans and anyone who cares about actual election integrity does not.
“In states controlled by the GOP over 200 voter restriction laws have been proposed or passed. Georgia is just one example. This upsurge in voter restrictions has come after the 2020 election when Biden won due, in part, to a huge upsurge in mail-in voting caused by the Covid pandemic. Biden narrowly won in Georgia”
Correct, but not a single one of those restrictive Republican voting laws restricts any legitimate voters ability to take valid photo ID to their poll and vote exactly as they have been able to do in the past.
The fight is over the fact that even easier voting means even easier fraud. If fraud is easy, it will happen if it has not already.
“now Trump could well be criminally charged for trying to get Georgia election officials to change the vote count.”
Wishful thinking.
Hillary tried to get electors to change their vote – and succeeded in a few cases.
Can we stop trying to manufacture crimes from thin air.
“Doesn’t get more un-democratic then that!”
Still not a democracy.
“So what is the GOP doing to prevent a repeat of 2020? In states controlled by the GOP they are limiting early-voting hours, eliminating or limiting the number of ballot drop-boxes and imposing other voting restrictions.”
When what they should be doing is returning to voting at the polls on election day.
Mailin voting can not be made secure. Additionally it is subject to coercion and inducement. There is almost no other nation that does not use secret ballot elections. Democrats are actively lending ammunition not only to US fraud – but global election fraud.
How do you expect to challenge Putin on election fraud – when Democrats are doing the same things.
“In my conservative GOP controlled state you have to request an absentee ballot and it must be notarized–an unnecessary burden on those who don’t drive, have medical conditions and poor and Black voters.”
Or you can just come to the courthouse and vote absentee.
“What the GOP wants to do is shift voting to in-person voting on election day.”
They do not wish to shift to that. They wish to return to that 250 year old Norm.
The Pandemic is over – so Biden has told us.
“This causes long voting lines like we see in Georgia.”
If you have long lines at your polling place that is a failure on the part of your election officials.
Congressional districts each contain about 750,000 people – not all vote.
Each is divided into 40 or more precincts of about 20,000 people each – not all vote.
The average polling place in the US sees about 9,000 voters on election day.
The average voting time is a few minutes.
Poor black precints are almost entirely urban, which means the average minority voter has to walk a couple of blocks to vote.
If that is not the case that is a failure on the part of local election officials.
“The GOP game plan is to “shrink” the vote so it can retain minority rule. ”
False and irrelevant.
Actually shrinking the vote does not mean minority rule. It means disincentivizing people who do not care as much.
That is a good thing.
In a perfect world I would have all voting in person and have a huricane everywhere on election day – so that only the most serious would vote.
“Now in California they have gone in the opposition direction by implementing “universal” voting by mail. It has worked well.”
Because you say so. There were lots of problems. Trump lost California by more than 5M votes.
I have little doubt there was lots of election fraud in CA, I have little doubt there was lots of election fraud in CA in the Newsome recall.
There is plenty of evidence.
But no one thinks there were 5M fraudulent votes in CA.
You can run an election almost any stupid way that you like – where one candidate is going to beat the other 2:1 and everyone knows it.
The need for election security is directly related to how close the election is.
The mailin voting that you want will in short order return the US to the massive election corruption that occured in the 19th century.
There is a reason that 38 states in the US and nearly ever country in the world requires secret ballot elections. Because they are the most secure way to conduct an election.
So long as CA remains nearly 2:1 democrat – there will not be significant fraud in their mailin elections.
But lets presume that CA has a governors election that is close – withing 0.25% of the vote. Do you think that both democrats and republicans will not be going door to door in CA paying people to vote for their candidate ?
How are you going to stop that ? In the 19th century ovters went to the streets on election day – union leaders, party bosses, employers provided them with prefilled out ballots. Voters were paid to sign them and then the bosses deposited them in ballot boxes.
You can not secure mailin voting period.
In 2020 in Newark NJ the local Judge threw out 250,000 mailin ballots as fraudulent in a democratic primary.
In Omars district in 2020 we know the going rate Ballot harvestors were paid for filled in ballots was $300 each.
In AZ and GA we know that Ballot harvestors were being paid $10 each per ballot – just for delivering ballots to drop boxes.
Dennis
You will lose this fight. The only question is how long it will take.
There is no question at all that mailin voting will ultimately result in large scale election fraud.
You can make mailin voting appear to work for a while when elections are not close.
Almost any completely ludicrously stupid means of voting works when one candidate has a 2:1 advantage over the other.
The incentive for fraud increases the closer the election is. In the 19th century voters were paid from $1 to $5 per ballot for signing prefilled out ballots. And that was in 19th century dollars.
We made a mistake in the 19th century not adding a secret ballot requirement to the US constitution.
You are on the wrong side of this issue.
You can rant and rave all you want about ease of voting.
It is easier for most people to vote than to go to the grocery store.
Intentionally or otherwise you are seeking to enable election fraud. If you succeed you will most certainly GET large scale election fraud.
You may even get away with it for a few cycles but eventually the fraud will be obvious to all.
And the next J6 may involve 10’s of thousands of heavily armed actual insurectionists who will prevail.