The Trump Card...

[muttly]

I'd like to know 5 policy disagreements that the anti Cheetos crowd has with Trump. The article posted doesn't really say anything about why Trump and the GOP need to be defeated other than the talking point that Trump is toxic. Besides the pearls clutching about his tweets that some don't like, what specifically has he done that they find so egregious? He has vowed to get out of foreign engagements. ( I thought that was important to some I recall)To the detriment of some of his military advisors( some former) who wanted to stay engaged. Trump decided against a military strike and potential escalation against Iran and went against the wishes of advisors like Bolton and others to do so.
He signed a criminal justice reform bill that many Democrats supported and before the Wuhan Virus hit we had record employment for blacks, hispanics, and women. Many of those constituents that happen to be Democrats.
So it's very interesting when I see some who align themselves with an epicly failed former political campaign manager who thinks Trump is the problem.
How about the Deep State actors that have been trying to undermine him since before he was elected? They are creating the toxic environment and are the problem, not Trump.

 

[Turtle]

Pre-pandemic (because no one knows how to deal with it, including the experts who have been wrong from the beginning and have flip-flopped more than a landed largemouth bass), every complaint people have about President Trump is about things that cannot be measured. Everything Trump has done that can be measured, is objectively better.

 

[muttly]

An update on a previous story.

Claims about Russian bounties in part based on old reports, intelligence sources say

No one definitively has determined the truth about bounty allegations.

justthenews.com

 

[RLENT]

Kanye’s runnin’ ...

Sure, why not ...




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Policy disagreements ?

1. Sheer and utter incompetence in the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One could easily find at least five specific things to disagree with on that topic alone ... and probably more than a dozen if pushed.

2. Tariffs - which he clearly doesn’t understand.

3. Nepotism - as Jared and Vanky seek to monetize their proximity.

4. Nominations - putting forward unqualified candidates for office, particularly for the judiciary.

5. Immigration.

6. Responsiveness to Congressional oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[Ragman]

Policy disagreements ?

1. Sheer and utter incompetence in the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One could easily find at least five specific things to disagree with on that topic alone ... and probably more than a dozen if pushed.

2. Tariffs - which he clearly doesn’t understand.

3. Nepotism - as Jared and Vanky seek to monetize their proximity.

4. Nominations - putting forward unqualified candidates for office, particularly for the judiciary.

5. Immigration.

6. Responsiveness to Congressional oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

7. Obstruction of justice

 

[muttly]

Policy disagreements ?

1. Sheer and utter incompetence in the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One could easily find at least five specific things to disagree with on that topic alone ... and probably more than a dozen if pushed.

2. Tariffs - which he clearly doesn’t understand.

3. Nepotism - as Jared and Vanky seek to monetize their proximity.

4. Nominations - putting forward unqualified candidates for office, particularly for the judiciary.

5. Immigration.

6. Responsiveness to Congressional oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

The Pandemic response: You mean the early travel ban while Democrat leaders were calling him a racist and said it was unnecessary. So I guess he should have declared a total country lockdown early on. How many calls of Dictator would he have received from Dems from that one? But how many lives were lost because 1. Democrat Governors ordered nursing homes to accept covid positive patients and keep them along with the healthy elderly population? How many lives were lost because some Democrat leaders and Democrat operatives in the media lambasted the President for touting a drug (HQC) that has been proven safe for decades and showed promise in treating patients with the virus? The media and their Dem cohorts created so much unwarranted fear about this drug that it caused health organizations to stop using the drug and for certain studies for prophylaxis use to lack sufficient volunteers to participate.. All due to the politicization of the drug merely because Trump had showed enthusiasm for it. The unhinged response to that should disgust anyone who wants workable solutions to the pandemic.





Tariffs: The threat to use tariffs with Canada and Mexico enabled the U.S. to enter a better trade deal than NAFTA and it was just implemented recently.
Most of the tariffs and threats of tariffs have been directed at CHINA.
Trump has mentioned before about how China has been ripping us off on trade.
I thought Dems would be on board with trying to level the playing field. Tariffs against China is one of the few bargaining chips we have. It appeared to be working until the Panemic hit. Now it looks like China will just wait and see if Biden gets elected. They view him as someone they can easily roll. All the 3 plus years undermining of the presidency as well as the hysterical impeachment didn't help in negotiations. It really has been a detriment to something I thought Dems cared about - jobs. But party and politics first. Thanks Dems.



Nepotism: This should be so far down on everyones' list of importance. I could care less about Jared and Ivanka and their little offices in the Whitehouse. They both were wealthy before they became advisors. They don't take a salary. Every Whitehouse probably had family members as advisors so I'm not going to waste my time much on this one. It's a nothingburger.

Nominations: Everyone has their opinion about what constitutes being qualified. SC justice Elana Kagan was never a judge, but I'll just leave this here: www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-myth-of-the-unqualified-trump-judge/


Immigration: If anything we have learned about this pandemic, it is that we should have a strong immigration and border policy.

Responsive to congressional oversight: Didn't we have a 2 year investigation ( witch hunt) into Russian collusion spearheaded by Dems demanding to appoint a special counsel for oversight? Thousands and thousands of documents handed over. About 50 different employees and associates subject to hours and hours of questioning. All a waste of time, resources, and it undermined a president just because some couldn't accept his duly elected presidency.

 

[muttly]

7. Obstruction of justice

You mean not wanting to talk to Biden's fundraiser so he could be caught in some cooked up perjury trap?

Joe Biden's Campaign Cancels Fundraiser with Mueller Team's Weissmann

Joe Biden has canceled plans to hold a campaign fundraiser headlined by Andrew Weissmann, according to the Wall Street Journal.

www.breitbart.com

It you want to see real obstruction of justice, see what they did to Flynn.

 

[Turtle]

Like I said, anything that can be measured is objectively better under Trump. Everything else is just whiny, cliché talking points.

 

[RLENT]

7. Obstruction of justice

Yeah ... you can pretty much figure that the shredders and “pulping” operation will be running full time for next few months ...

 

[RLENT]

You mean not wanting to talk to Biden's fundraiser so he could be caught in some cooked up perjury trap?

No.

It you want to see real obstruction of justice, see what they did to Flynn.

Not even.

And Flynn ain’t out of the woods yet either.

 

[muttly]

No.





Not even.

And Flynn ain’t out of the woods yet either.

The prosecution and the defendant agreed that the case should be dropped. The three judge appellate court also ruled that the case should be let go. But the presiding judge wanted to be a prosecutor and continue with the case. You can't make this up.
Imagen an indigent defendant subjected to this kind of treatment by a rogue judge.

 

[dalscott]

Like I said, anything that can be measured is objectively better under Trump. Everything else is just whiny, cliché talking points.

Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

That's not a measurement, that's a talking point, and a cliché one, at that. Trump is the 45th president (and at least the 90th major party candidate) accused of having sheep as followers, so you're gonna have to get a lot more creative than that. It's weak. Weak, I tell you. Weak!

 

[RLENT]

The prosecution and the defendant agreed that the case should be dropped.

No - there was at least one career, line prosecutor who resigned from the case - over Low Barr The Corrupter and Obstructor’s corrupt interference.

That guy was “the prosecution” ...

Low Barr has never been a prosecutor.

The three judge appellate court also ruled that the case should be let go.

2 to 1 ruling, one of whom is a Trump appointed (the other one in the majority was a Republican as well)

Want to lay odds on how it will go if the case is heard by the full court, en banc ?

But the presiding judge wanted to be a prosecutor and continue with the case. You can't make this up.

The presiding judge has a duty - in the interest of seeing justice done - to ensure there isn’t a corrupt influence at work.

Imagen an indigent defendant subjected to this kind of treatment by a rogue judge.

Now imagine a corrupt AG interfering ... to get a guilty party off scot-free ...

Flynn is guilty ... he plead so ... twice.

SIDNEY POWELL’S GREAT TIME MACHINE OF ELECTORAL GASLIGHTING

 

[muttly]

No - there was at least one career, line prosecutor who resigned from the case - over Low Barr The Corrupter and Obstructor’s corrupt interference.

That guy was “the prosecution” ...

Low Barr has never been a prosecutor.



2 to 1 ruling, one of whom is a Trump appointed (the other one in the majority was a Republican as well)

Want to lay odds on how it will go if the case is heard by the full court, en banc ?

The presiding judge has a duty - in the interest of seeing justice done - to ensure there isn’t a corrupt influence at work.



Now imagine a corrupt AG interfering ... to get a guilty party off scot-free ...

Flynn is guilty ... he plead so ... twice.

SIDNEY POWELL’S GREAT TIME MACHINE OF ELECTORAL GASLIGHTING

Nice try. They had an independent prosecutor look at the case and all of the malfeasance and it was his recommendation. Partly based on you know like - What is are goal here, to get him fired?. I didn't realize the FBI job description was for them to get people fired. You would think the presiding judge would see that as a "corrupt influence" in the case. That and investigators statements that they didn't believe Flynn was being deceptive and lying. But unfortunately the presiding judge appears to have gone off the rails and taken on the case as prosecutor. Forging ahead with a case that doesn't have a plaintiff. This is bizarro world kind of stuff with this judge.
Again, if this case had an indigent defendant who happened to be a leftist, and who let's say was charged with a crime of rape, which he didn't commit, but the investigators coerced or threatened the defendant to admit he did it. And you had a presiding judge that became privy to the exculpatory evidence, but instead of being totally pissed that his court was the venue for a nonsense case, he decides that the brilliant thing to do is to power through with the prosecution of an innocent man. Absolutely hilarious.

But regarding the three judge panel consisting of a Trump judge and a Bush judge. I'm old enough to remember that Chief Justice Roberts lecturing that there is no such thing.

 

[Turtle]

No - there was at least one career, line prosecutor who resigned from the case - over Low Barr The Corrupter and Obstructor’s corrupt interference.

That guy was “the prosecution” ...

First of all, one of the career, line prosecutors removed himself from the case (and oddly, every case he was associated with, so removed himself or got removed, it's hard to tell), one week after FBI files were unsealed that showed the FBI agents had cooked up a bogus case against him in the early days of the Russia probe, and that said career, line prosecutor (Brandon Van Grack, and former Mueller Team Member) did willfully and knowingly violated a court order to turn over any Brady material (that the FBI recommended the case be closed, and that Peter Strzok intervened to keep the case open), and lied under oath. His removal also came three days after Corey F. Ellis, the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, informed the prosecutors that the sentence they were seeking was too harsh. This as after Ellis recommended to the Attorney General that the case be dismissed entirely, in light of the fact that both of Flynn's guilty pleas came under duress (FBI agents either threatened directly or made Flynn believe they would go after his son on some other bogus charges) and of the recently unsealed FBI documents. Van Grack is still subject to contempt charges, but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Second, in the federal criminal justice system, the United States Attorneys act as prosecutors on behalf of the Department of Justice, which is the entity charged with the prosecution of criminal cases. The prosecutors act under the rules and policies of the DOJ, and can only be considered the de facto "the prosecution" when their actions are in agreement with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the Office of the Attorney General (and the 4 Offices under it). So one guy is not "the prosecution" In any event, the instant he removed himself (or was removed) from the case, he was no longer "the prosecution" by any stretch of the imagination.

The presiding judge has a duty - in the interest of seeing justice done - to ensure there isn’t a corrupt influence at work.

But the judge can't do that by becoming an advocate, for or against a defendant. When a judge does that, that in and of itself is a corrupt influence. Besides, under federal law, once a judicial proceeding has begun, and prior to disposition of the case, if the prosecution and the defendant both agree to drop charges, the moment that motion is filed with the court, the case ends right then and there. So to your question of the judge's decision being heard en banc, it's a slam dunk against the judge. If not, SCOTUS will rule against the judge, because there is no provision under federal law for a judge to impose a sentence in a case where there the prosecution has already dropped the charges.

 

[RLENT]

Nice try. They had an independent prosecutor look at the case and all of the malfeasance and it was his recommendation. Partly based on you know like - What is are goal here, to get him fired?. I didn't realize the FBI job description was for them to get people fired. You would think the presiding judge would see that as a "corrupt influence" in the case. That and investigators statements that they didn't believe Flynn was being deceptive and lying. But unfortunately the presiding judge appears to have gone off the rails and taken on the case as prosecutor. Forging ahead with a case that doesn't have a plaintiff. This is bizarro world kind of stuff with this judge.
Again, if this case had an indigent defendant who happened to be a leftist, and who let's say was charged with a crime of rape, which he didn't commit, but the investigators coerced or threatened the defendant to admit he did it. And you had a presiding judge that became privy to the exculpatory evidence, but instead of being totally pissed that his court was the venue for a nonsense case, he decides that the brilliant thing to do is to power through with the prosecution of an innocent man. Absolutely hilarious.

But regarding the three judge panel consisting of a Trump judge and a Bush judge. I'm old enough to remember that Chief Justice Roberts lecturing that there is no such thing.

No.

Flynn plead guilty ... twice.

He did that under oath.

So ... if he wasn’t guilty of what he plead to, then he is de facto guilty ... of perjury and lying under oath ... twice to a federal judge.

Moreover, Flynn is not protected by double jeopardy on the crimes he wasn’t charged with.

Further, even if Judge Sullivan were to dismiss the current charges, he is under no obligation to dismiss them with prejudice ... which could allow them to refiled in the future.

THE LOGAN ACT IS JUST THE CHERRY ON MIKE FLYNN’S FOREIGN AGENT SUNDAE

 

[RLENT]

First of all, one of the career, line prosecutors removed himself from the case (and oddly, every case he was associated with, so removed himself or got removed, it's hard to tell), one week after FBI files were unsealed that showed the FBI agents had cooked up a bogus case against him in the early days of the Russia probe, and that said career, line prosecutor (Brandon Van Grack, and former Mueller Team Member) did willfully and knowingly violated a court order to turn over any Brady material (that the FBI recommended the case be closed, and that Peter Strzok intervened to keep the case open), and lied under oath. His removal also came three days after Corey F. Ellis, the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, informed the prosecutors that the sentence they were seeking was too harsh. This as after Ellis recommended to the Attorney General that the case be dismissed entirely, in light of the fact that both of Flynn's guilty pleas came under duress (FBI agents either threatened directly or made Flynn believe they would go after his son on some other bogus charges) and of the recently unsealed FBI documents. Van Grack is still subject to contempt charges, but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Second, in the federal criminal justice system, the United States Attorneys act as prosecutors on behalf of the Department of Justice, which is the entity charged with the prosecution of criminal cases. The prosecutors act under the rules and policies of the DOJ, and can only be considered the de facto "the prosecution" when their actions are in agreement with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the Office of the Attorney General (and the 4 Offices under it). So one guy is not "the prosecution" In any event, the instant he removed himself (or was removed) from the case, he was no longer "the prosecution" by any stretch of the imagination.


But the judge can't do that by becoming an advocate, for or against a defendant. When a judge does that, that in and of itself is a corrupt influence. Besides, under federal law, once a judicial proceeding has begun, and prior to disposition of the case, if the prosecution and the defendant both agree to drop charges, the moment that motion is filed with the court, the case ends right then and there. So to your question of the judge's decision being heard en banc, it's a slam dunk against the judge. If not, SCOTUS will rule against the judge, because there is no provision under federal law for a judge to impose a sentence in a case where there the prosecution has already dropped the charges.

Also: no ...


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[muttly]

No.

Flynn plead guilty ... twice.

He did that under oath.

So ... if he wasn’t guilty of what he plead to, then he is de facto guilty ... of perjury and lying under oath ... twice to a federal judge.

Moreover, Flynn is not protected by double jeopardy on the crimes he wasn’t charged with.

Further, even if Judge Sullivan were to dismiss the current charges, he is under no obligation to dismiss them with prejudice ... which could allow them to refiled in the future.

THE LOGAN ACT IS JUST THE CHERRY ON MIKE FLYNN’S FOREIGN AGENT SUNDAE

If a defendant is coerced into a guilty plea and he says to the judge that he wasn't, but he actually was. You're saying a judge should accept charges of perjury? What prosecutor and judge would follow through with that if they had any integrity?