WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:30 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17498
Location: By the phone
As this story explains, a review of the docket of the United States Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit makes it appear very likely that Donny is currently appealing an order from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issuing a subpoena requiring Donny to appear and testify before a grand jury. The author of the story is absolutely right about the breakneck speed with which the case he describes is proceeding. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
That's nothing compared to the blizzard of subpoenas that will start flying around the first of January when the new House (and hopefully Senate as well) is sworn in.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4260
Location: Merion, Pa.
silverscreenselect wrote:
That's nothing compared to the blizzard of subpoenas that will start flying around the first of January when the new House (and hopefully Senate as well) is sworn in.
This is speculation. Mueller is keeping very quiet around election time (unlike some investigators in 2016). But from what we know from before October, he (along with federal and state prosecutors in New York) have already questioned most of Trump's inner circle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17498
Location: By the phone
jarnon wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
That's nothing compared to the blizzard of subpoenas that will start flying around the first of January when the new House (and hopefully Senate as well) is sworn in.
This is speculation. Mueller is keeping very quiet around election time (unlike some investigators in 2016). But from what we know from before October, he (along with federal and state prosecutors in New York) have already questioned most of Trump's inner circle.
It's not speculation. It's informed inference based on the docket and other evidence laid out in the article. It may not be right, but I can't think of another plausible explanation for the D.C. Circuit's remarkably quick action with respect to the District Court's order. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
jarnon wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
That's nothing compared to the blizzard of subpoenas that will start flying around the first of January when the new House (and hopefully Senate as well) is sworn in.
This is speculation. Mueller is keeping very quiet around election time (unlike some investigators in 2016). But from what we know from before October, he (along with federal and state prosecutors in New York) have already questioned most of Trump's inner circle.


These subpoenas would be coming from Congressional inquiries.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4260
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob78164 wrote:
jarnon wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
That's nothing compared to the blizzard of subpoenas that will start flying around the first of January when the new House (and hopefully Senate as well) is sworn in.
This is speculation. Mueller is keeping very quiet around election time (unlike some investigators in 2016). But from what we know from before October, he (along with federal and state prosecutors in New York) have already questioned most of Trump's inner circle.
It's not speculation. It's informed inference based on the docket and other evidence laid out in the article. It may not be right, but I can't think of another plausible explanation for the D.C. Circuit's remarkably quick action with respect to the District Court's order. --Bob
No, Bob, I'm agreeing with you. The speculation is SSS's "that's nothing." I predict that the House Democrats will find little that Mueller doesn't already know about. But there are plenty of House committees and lots of other officials they can investigate: Wilbur Ross, Mulvaney, Mnuchin, Zinke, DeVos, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
jarnon wrote:
I predict that the House Democrats will find little that Mueller doesn't already know about.


But they can make a lot of information public that Mueller can't simply by holding public hearings. And that's especially true if Trump tries to get rid of Mueller after the election.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17498
Location: By the phone
jarnon wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
jarnon wrote:
This is speculation. Mueller is keeping very quiet around election time (unlike some investigators in 2016). But from what we know from before October, he (along with federal and state prosecutors in New York) have already questioned most of Trump's inner circle.
It's not speculation. It's informed inference based on the docket and other evidence laid out in the article. It may not be right, but I can't think of another plausible explanation for the D.C. Circuit's remarkably quick action with respect to the District Court's order. --Bob
No, Bob, I'm agreeing with you. The speculation is SSS's "that's nothing." I predict that the House Democrats will find little that Mueller doesn't already know about. But there are plenty of House committees and lots of other officials they can investigate: Wilbur Ross, Mulvaney, Mnuchin, Zinke, DeVos, etc.
Ah, I misunderstood you.

I do suspect House Democrats will find lots to investigate, starting with violations of the Emoluments Clause, that Mueller hasn't looked into because he considers it outside his mandate. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17498
Location: By the phone
silverscreenselect wrote:
jarnon wrote:
I predict that the House Democrats will find little that Mueller doesn't already know about.


But they can make a lot of information public that Mueller can't simply by holding public hearings. And that's especially true if Trump tries to get rid of Mueller after the election.
Starting with Donny's tax returns. It's about time we found out what he's been hiding. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4363
Location: Olympia, Washington
You're all wrong. He subpoenaed Hillary.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4260
Location: Merion, Pa.
This is undoubtedly a different case, since the names involved don't match, but I'm sure Bob will be intrigued:

Supreme Court Blocks Commerce Secretary Questioning In Census Lawsuits, For Now

This line caught my eye, for its hypocrisy and astounding chutzpah:
Quote:
The administration argues the Justice Department's civil rights division, currently led by Gore, needs the question on citizenship in the census in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act protections against racial discrimination.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10013
Location: In Texas of course!
jarnon wrote:
This is undoubtedly a different case, since the names involved don't match, but I'm sure Bob will be intrigued:

Supreme Court Blocks Commerce Secretary Questioning In Census Lawsuits, For Now

This line caught my eye, for its hypocrisy and astounding chutzpah:
Quote:
The administration argues the Justice Department's civil rights division, currently led by Gore, needs the question on citizenship in the census in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act protections against racial discrimination.


I find it extremely illogical for the census to NOT ask about citizenship.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Posts: 12632
Location: mired in the bureaucracy
BackInTex wrote:
jarnon wrote:
This is undoubtedly a different case, since the names involved don't match, but I'm sure Bob will be intrigued:

Supreme Court Blocks Commerce Secretary Questioning In Census Lawsuits, For Now

This line caught my eye, for its hypocrisy and astounding chutzpah:
Quote:
The administration argues the Justice Department's civil rights division, currently led by Gore, needs the question on citizenship in the census in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act protections against racial discrimination.


I find it extremely illogical for the census to NOT ask about citizenship.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the census in order to apportion the number of representatives for each state (as well as taxation). The 14th Amendment (yes, the same one that grants "birthright citizenship"), Section 2, says that "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" are to be counted. It says nothing about counting only citizens.

_________________
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
earendel wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
jarnon wrote:
This is undoubtedly a different case, since the names involved don't match, but I'm sure Bob will be intrigued:

Supreme Court Blocks Commerce Secretary Questioning In Census Lawsuits, For Now

This line caught my eye, for its hypocrisy and astounding chutzpah:


I find it extremely illogical for the census to NOT ask about citizenship.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the census in order to apportion the number of representatives for each state (as well as taxation). The 14th Amendment (yes, the same one that grants "birthright citizenship"), Section 2, says that "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" are to be counted. It says nothing about counting only citizens.


The only rationale in the Constitution for asking more detailed questions about the people living in the US was the provisions about slaves counting 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation in the House. That went away when slavery was abolished.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10013
Location: In Texas of course!
earendel wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
jarnon wrote:
This is undoubtedly a different case, since the names involved don't match, but I'm sure Bob will be intrigued:

Supreme Court Blocks Commerce Secretary Questioning In Census Lawsuits, For Now

This line caught my eye, for its hypocrisy and astounding chutzpah:


I find it extremely illogical for the census to NOT ask about citizenship.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the census in order to apportion the number of representatives for each state (as well as taxation). The 14th Amendment (yes, the same one that grants "birthright citizenship"), Section 2, says that "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" are to be counted. It says nothing about counting only citizens.


Where did I say only count citizens? I did not.

Citizenship status is as important, and in my opinion more important, than the other demographic information collected.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
BackInTex wrote:
Citizenship status is as important, and in my opinion more important, than the other demographic information collected.


And the reason for not asking about citizenship is because people are less likely to answer questions accurately if they are essentially being asked to incriminate themselves or a family member.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:50 am 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 9276
Location: Garden Grove, CA
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Citizenship status is as important, and in my opinion more important, than the other demographic information collected.
And the reason for not asking about citizenship is because people are less likely to answer questions accurately if they are essentially being asked to incriminate themselves or a family member.
"Incriminate" implies they've committed crimes. I thought you just considered them "undocumented."

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
Estonut wrote:
"Incriminate" implies they've committed crimes. I thought you just considered them "undocumented."


It doesn't matter what I consider them. It matters what the people taking the census, who represent Donald Trump's federal government consider them.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4363
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
Estonut wrote:
"Incriminate" implies they've committed crimes. I thought you just considered them "undocumented."


It doesn't matter what I consider them. It matters what the people taking the census, who represent Donald Trump's federal government consider them.


Silly me. I thought it was the LAW that determined those kinds of things.*



Footnotes:
* Hannity 3/4/18, Bitebart 4/10/17, Fox News 7/10/16, All other sources that can be ignored because they are not approved of by liberal thought police.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4260
Location: Merion, Pa.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Estonut wrote:
"Incriminate" implies they've committed crimes. I thought you just considered them "undocumented."


It doesn't matter what I consider them. It matters what the people taking the census, who represent Donald Trump's federal government consider them.


Silly me. I thought it was the LAW that determined those kinds of things.
You're right, the law says the folks we call "undocumented" are in our country illegally.

The law also says census data can't be shared with other agencies like ICE. But many aliens don't know this, or distrust the federal government as a whole.

The law also says Trump can't exclude whole classes of people from the 14th Amendment, or order troops to shoot foreigners at the border, but Trump still makes these threats, to rally his supporters and annoy the opposition. Until the whole immigration mess is fixed, these political games will go on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10013
Location: In Texas of course!
jarnon wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

It doesn't matter what I consider them. It matters what the people taking the census, who represent Donald Trump's federal government consider them.


Silly me. I thought it was the LAW that determined those kinds of things.
You're right, the law says the folks we call "undocumented" are in our country illegally.

The law also says census data can't be shared with other agencies like ICE. But many aliens don't know this, or distrust the federal government as a whole.

The law also says Trump can't exclude whole classes of people from the 14th Amendment, or order troops to shoot foreigners at the border, but Trump still makes these threats, to rally his supporters and annoy the opposition. Until the whole immigration mess is fixed, these political games will go on.


What law says our military can't defend our borders from an invading force of domestic or foreign people? That would be a pretty stupid law. Serious question.

I believe the Coast Guard has done it numerous times.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15623
BackInTex wrote:

What law says our military can't defend our borders from an invading force of domestic or foreign people? That would be a pretty stupid law. Serious question.

I believe the Coast Guard has done it numerous times.


We sent troops into Mexico after Pancho Villa before World War I (with mixed success), but it's ridiculous to consider these families in the caravan as an "invading force." That is unless you're Donald Trump trying to stir up anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic sentiment as an 11th hour political ploy It's interesting that Republican candidates in battleground states of Nevada and Arizona, who theoretically would be among the most at risk in the event of an actual invasion from the south, asked Trump not to show up in their states for a rally this week.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4260
Location: Merion, Pa.
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

What law says our military can't defend our borders from an invading force of domestic or foreign people? That would be a pretty stupid law. Serious question.

I believe the Coast Guard has done it numerous times.


We sent troops into Mexico after Pancho Villa before World War I (with mixed success), but it's ridiculous to consider these families in the caravan as an "invading force."
This is what Republicans are afraid of:



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10013
Location: In Texas of course!
jarnon wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

What law says our military can't defend our borders from an invading force of domestic or foreign people? That would be a pretty stupid law. Serious question.

I believe the Coast Guard has done it numerous times.


We sent troops into Mexico after Pancho Villa before World War I (with mixed success), but it's ridiculous to consider these families in the caravan as an "invading force."
This is what Republicans are afraid of:



Nope, but you can keep putting your head in the sand and pretend that it is.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17498
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
jarnon wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

We sent troops into Mexico after Pancho Villa before World War I (with mixed success), but it's ridiculous to consider these families in the caravan as an "invading force."
This is what Republicans are afraid of:



Nope, but you can keep putting your head in the sand and pretend that it is.
Well, that's the view of the Pentagon so I guess we're in good company. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.