It is not necessary for us to just look into the past...
Trump through his loyal derps are actively criming in Trump 2.0..
Not giving immigrants due process is a crime. Agents shooting unarmed activists 5x is a crime. Entering homes without a signed warrant is a crime. Carrying blank and unfilled warrants and then writing them out after the arrest is a crime. Not allowing immigrants to get their bond hearings in a timely manner is a crime. Ignoring court orders is a crime. Holding an immigrant under a pseudonym at a hospital for 37 days, that had his leg broken by ICE agents, is a crime. Arresting the same US citizen multiple times because of their skin color and accent is a crime. Claiming the president has absolute power, when they are bound by the limits written in the constitution, is a crime. Bombing civilian fishing boats in the Caribbean is a crime. Sending undocumented immigrants to third countries where they risk torture or death is a crime. Threatening to arrest and labeling your political opponents as terrorists is a crime.
You are raising an important point, but the simple answer is: in this country we have a system of checks and balances to ensure that our elected leadership does not make decisions that are binding an unilateral.
The media gets this wrong almost every time. It is not the judge issuing a ruling out of thin air. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson challenged Trump's interpretation of the law in our court system, asking for a temporary injunction (a ruling that would prevent Trump from deploying the National Guard) and received it. The reasoning, which is quoted in the article as if it came out of thin air, is the judge's logic explaining why she ruled in Johnson's favor, granting the injunction.
Trump has the right of appeal, which he will exercise. Based on previous rulings, the case is likely to be escalated to the Supreme Court (on its emergency or what is sometimes called "shadow docket") where the justices will answer the question, "Was the ruling correct in light of the statute (or law)."
We have ample precedent that tells us the injunction will probably be overturned. More than half of the Supreme Court Justices following a model of jurisprudence called "constitutionalism" (sometimes "originalism") that interprets laws in light of what they mean when they were written. More liberal justices rule as if the Constitution were a "living document," and therefore it is shaped by current political culture and climate. They are in the minority, however (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson-Brown). So the ruling is probably going to be 6-3 in Trump's favor. Robert's, who is Chief Justice of the Court is usually a swing vote and he will join the majority in major decisions to give the ruling legitimacy.
When the injunction is overturned--again, the question here isn't "Is Chicago a war zone that makes it necessary for Trump to dispatch the National Guard?" It's "Does Trump have the authority to do it?" (Well, the Constitution does give him the authority, so...) you should expect another round of MSM outlets (with the exception of Fox News) claiming that "the Supreme Court has sided with Trump" because they have, while completely ignoring the reason they did so: the Constitution permits Trump to do so. This implies that the Justices are pro-Trump, which could not be further from the truth.
The Supreme Court is not ruling on the appropriateness of Trump's decision. Johnson will not be able to appeal the injunction, but he will be able to file another case in the future that questions Trump's decision on grounds other than his authority to make it.
Not that it'll make much of a difference on here but the Trump/Letitia James stuff bothers me & it shouldn't be partisan. James pursued a civil suit against Trump. It got through pleading, which means it had the facts to go to trial. Trump was found liable &, on appeal, the penalty was deemed excessive, which is somewhat common if a judge thinks the jury went too far in its awarding of damages. That doesn't erase liability. A court convicted & upheld liability.
So Trump looked bad & wants to get back at James. He tells Erik Siebert, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of VA, to file civil suit against James. Siebert tells Trump they cannot overcome pleading -- i.e. they do not have the facts to go to trial, let alone convict. Trump fires Siebert and replaces him with someone with no prosecutorial experience. Trump's replacement, Lindsey Hannigan, is an insurance attorney & was sworn into the role on September 22nd. She quickly calls for a grand jury. Note the distinction. There are still not enough facts to pursue a civil suit. Grand juries can, famously, "indict a ham sandwich." Very simply, grand juries are one sided. The prosecutor presents their case one-sided. The jury finds for probable cause. This is a low standard. So Trump gets the headline & everyone thinks it's the same as what happens to him, that James is guilty/liable, etc. It's not the same at all. It's incredibly frustrating and downright insulting.
I don't want to get into the back and forth of going after political opponents. If you are a Trump fan, my point is that he fired an attorney for doing their job to circumvent the legal process to get a desired result/headline disconnected from actual evidence. It should anger everyone, followers + non-followers, that he's willing to fire someone like Siebert who did nothing wrong. Even if you hate James, or whatever, he fired Siebert and put in Hannigan because he needed someone without the morals to seek a grand jury indictment. This is concerning and the way it's framed in a partisan manner isn't helpful. You shouldn't be celebrating or condemning the indictment based on political party. If James committed fraud, take her to court. Don't fire your attorney and replace them with someone willing to get a meaningless headline for you. Siebert should never have lost his job for doing it correctly. You can't just switch up lawyers to change legal outcomes.
Leticia James was a hunter fulfilled with power fantasies. Now she will learn Karma, be punished and hopefully turn her life around for the positive.
note the difference.
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
Everyone overvalues their own properties for loans and tries to pay as little tax as possible. Do you blame him? No bank said they were harmed - not at all!
Everyone commits the same crime does not mean that it is not a crime. While the amount of the judgment might have been excessive, Trump got slam dunked in that case.
He's a career criminal.
Does everyone also pilfer a kids' cancer charity? Or start a sham university?
How often do you speed? Have you ever run a red light if it’s later at night and nobody is around?
You are raising an important point, but the simple answer is: in this country we have a system of checks and balances to ensure that our elected leadership does not make decisions that are binding an unilateral.
The media gets this wrong almost every time. It is not the judge issuing a ruling out of thin air. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson challenged Trump's interpretation of the law in our court system, asking for a temporary injunction (a ruling that would prevent Trump from deploying the National Guard) and received it. The reasoning, which is quoted in the article as if it came out of thin air, is the judge's logic explaining why she ruled in Johnson's favor, granting the injunction.
Trump has the right of appeal, which he will exercise. Based on previous rulings, the case is likely to be escalated to the Supreme Court (on its emergency or what is sometimes called "shadow docket") where the justices will answer the question, "Was the ruling correct in light of the statute (or law)."
We have ample precedent that tells us the injunction will probably be overturned. More than half of the Supreme Court Justices following a model of jurisprudence called "constitutionalism" (sometimes "originalism") that interprets laws in light of what they mean when they were written. More liberal justices rule as if the Constitution were a "living document," and therefore it is shaped by current political culture and climate. They are in the minority, however (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson-Brown). So the ruling is probably going to be 6-3 in Trump's favor. Robert's, who is Chief Justice of the Court is usually a swing vote and he will join the majority in major decisions to give the ruling legitimacy.
When the injunction is overturned--again, the question here isn't "Is Chicago a war zone that makes it necessary for Trump to dispatch the National Guard?" It's "Does Trump have the authority to do it?" (Well, the Constitution does give him the authority, so...) you should expect another round of MSM outlets (with the exception of Fox News) claiming that "the Supreme Court has sided with Trump" because they have, while completely ignoring the reason they did so: the Constitution permits Trump to do so. This implies that the Justices are pro-Trump, which could not be further from the truth.
The Supreme Court is not ruling on the appropriateness of Trump's decision. Johnson will not be able to appeal the injunction, but he will be able to file another case in the future that questions Trump's decision on grounds other than his authority to make it.
Very thoughtful response. Thank you.
I was under the impression that it is the Supreme Court's favoring of Unitary executive Theory that is repeatedly driving their rulings favoring all that Trump does. Not so much that they are constitutional originalists.
After all the constitution says that a President that is impeached could be tried for criminal activity as well. Yet they gave the president criminal immunity by saying he is engaging in official acts. And no evidence toward criminality proof could ever enter into a case because he is engaging in official acts. So essentially they negated the constitution which says a president could face criminal liability. They did this under their strong leaning on Unitary Executive Theory. (Nobody can question the executive)
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
Trump dealt with the weaponization of the “justice” system like nobody before. He was the victim of a tremendous amount of Democrat lawfare, yet he endured and came out of it better than ever before.
I was under the impression that it is the Supreme Court's favoring of Unitary executive Theory that is repeatedly driving their rulings favoring all that Trump does. Not so much that they are constitutional originalists.
After all the constitution says that a President that is impeached could be tried for criminal activity as well. Yet they gave the president criminal immunity by saying he is engaging in official acts. And no evidence toward criminality proof could ever enter into a case because he is engaging in official acts. So essentially they negated the constitution which says a president could face criminal liability. They did this under their strong leaning on Unitary Executive Theory. (Nobody can question the executive)
Do we elect a president or do we elect activist “judges” whose sole purpose is to stymie Trump’s America-first agenda? Who should have more power - the president or a random Biden judge?
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
Trump dealt with the weaponization of the “justice” system like nobody before. He was the victim of a tremendous amount of Democrat lawfare, yet he endured and came out of it better than ever before.
I love when Trumpers straight up adopt Trumps way of speaking...
I was under the impression that it is the Supreme Court's favoring of Unitary executive Theory that is repeatedly driving their rulings favoring all that Trump does. Not so much that they are constitutional originalists.
After all the constitution says that a President that is impeached could be tried for criminal activity as well. Yet they gave the president criminal immunity by saying he is engaging in official acts. And no evidence toward criminality proof could ever enter into a case because he is engaging in official acts. So essentially they negated the constitution which says a president could face criminal liability. They did this under their strong leaning on Unitary Executive Theory. (Nobody can question the executive)
Do we elect a president or do we elect activist “judges” whose sole purpose is to stymie Trump’s America-first agenda? Who should have more power - the president or a random Biden judge?
Your post is too loaded up with Fox News rhetoric to respond.
Activist. Sole purpose, Stymie Trump's America first, Random Biden Judge.
Even if you hate James, or whatever, he fired Siebert and put in Hannigan because he needed someone without the morals to seek a grand jury indictment.
You mean like how immoral Democrats got grand juries to indict Trump?
Odd how you lefties loved grand juries then, but hate them now.
I was under the impression that it is the Supreme Court's favoring of Unitary executive Theory that is repeatedly driving their rulings favoring all that Trump does. Not so much that they are constitutional originalists.
After all the constitution says that a President that is impeached could be tried for criminal activity as well. Yet they gave the president criminal immunity by saying he is engaging in official acts. And no evidence toward criminality proof could ever enter into a case because he is engaging in official acts. So essentially they negated the constitution which says a president could face criminal liability. They did this under their strong leaning on Unitary Executive Theory. (Nobody can question the executive)
I think the major doctrine that rules the eventual outcome is the Supremacy Clause:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, constitute...
It says that States are subordinate to the Federal Government. We are talking about the *National* Guard here. If you don't care for Trump's actions, it is important to remember that the same statute allowed Eisenhower to deploy the National Guard to Little Rock, Arkansas when schools were integrated there, over staunch opposition from the Governor.
The Unitary Executive Theory simply gives the Presodent domain over pretty much everything in the Executive branch:
In U.S. constitutional law, the unitary executive theory is a theory according to which the president of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreemen...
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of...
The ruling that gave Trump immunity for official acts. That means he can't be prosecuted for the events of January 6. But it only him immunity for *official* acts (he was speaking as President on that day, and, to take it a bit further, people in this country disagree over whether he invited the events that followed). He does not have immunity for unofficial acts, nor does he have immunity for private behavior. And the ruling is not tailor-made for Trump...it applies to all Presidents.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Even if you hate James, or whatever, he fired Siebert and put in Hannigan because he needed someone without the morals to seek a grand jury indictment.
You mean like how immoral Democrats got grand juries to indict Trump?
Odd how you lefties loved grand juries then, but hate them now.
You are creating a straw man. Nobody is complaining about the grand jury. Trump fired his own appointment career prosecutor because he said there is no case.
DOJ policy is not whether they can get an indictment but whether they can get a conviction. Trump needed his own insurance lawyer to bypass DOJ policy.
If you need any more help differentiating Trumps legal cases vs Comey and James, look at the defense responses.
Comey is demanding and getting a speedy trial. Trumps legal strategy was always the same. Delay, delay, delay, boatloads of trivial motion filings and objections all contradicting themselves in different jurisdictions. All to run out the clock and never go to trial. It proved successful thanks to SCOTUS, Cannon and US Citizens.
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
Trump dealt with the weaponization of the “justice” system like nobody before. He was the victim of a tremendous amount of Democrat lawfare, yet he endured and came out of it better than ever before.
trump was guilty as sin and you know it. It's not political persecution if the crimes are that vivid and obvious. He did the crimes.
Except the BS NY prosecution on Stormy. that one was sketchy. he was guilty, but only prosecuted because he is an evil SOB.
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
Trump dealt with the weaponization of the “justice” system like nobody before. He was the victim of a tremendous amount of Democrat lawfare, yet he endured and came out of it better than ever before.
Leticia James was a hunter fulfilled with power fantasies. Now she will learn Karma, be punished and hopefully turn her life around for the positive.
note the difference.
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
👆note. fool speaking
I don’t recall where I said Trump is “innocent”. I recall where I said he is our chosen leader and you will need to suck it up. you’re opinion is becoming less relevant by the day. you’ve got a lot of growing up to do Chief.
Pentagon agrees to build Qatari Emiri Air Force facility in Idaho as part of the ongoing U.S.-Qatar partnership, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Friday.
Even if you hate James, or whatever, he fired Siebert and put in Hannigan because he needed someone without the morals to seek a grand jury indictment.
You mean like how immoral Democrats got grand juries to indict Trump?
Odd how you lefties loved grand juries then, but hate them now.
This poster thinks trump is innocent despite being found guilty and liable
This same poster thinks James is guilty despite neverher having been found guilty or liable and without his even seeing the evidence. Any evidence.
👆note. fool speaking
I don’t recall where I said Trump is “innocent”. I recall where I said he is our chosen leader and you will need to suck it up. you’re opinion is becoming less relevant by the day. you’ve got a lot of growing up to do Chief.
ok so you support a guy who you agree is guilty and liable as sin. That's who you think should be the most powerful man on the planet. Who should be making decisions about the most powerful nation on earth. You don't mind the open corruption because hey he was elected and on your team.
As they say, a nation gets the government it deserves.
We deserve the catastrophe coming our way for electing a guilty amoral sinful lying SOB as our president for 8 years and thinking that's perfectly normal.
Newly-released video shows a federal agent shoot a Chicago pastor in the head with a pepper ball during a protest outside the ICE facility in suburban Broadview.
