Posted on 12/04/2019 7:20:36 AM PST by detective
"Here is my strategy on the cold war: we win, they lose."
Ronald Reagan.
President Trump has done a great job so far. The fact that he is still in office and has had some successes in spite of being continually sabotaged is remarkable.
But President Trump is losing in his attempt to clean up the federal government and drain the swamp.
Most Americans do not realize how extensive the attempt to destroy the Trump Presidency is. Those who work against the president face no consequences for their actions. President Trump only has to lose once and he will be destroyed. He will be impeached, prosecuted and sent to prison.
The media compare Trump supporters to Nazis, ISIS fighters, Klansmen and any other insult they can think of.
These people will never stop working against the president.
President Trump should realize he is in an all out war. Like President Reagan he should make sure he wins and they lose.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions
**********
By now Barr should have held some people accountable for weaponizing their agencies and their involvement in Spygate. Its not as if there isn’t much evidence; to the contrary there is a sea of evidence that already exists against many of the players.
Do you think Barr is preparing some gigantic dragnet to round up the cabal in one massive case? I seriously doubt it because (1) no sweeping dragnet like this has ever been done before and (2) the mass trials would rattle DC to its core. So assuming he’s not going that route why hasn’t he taken legal action against obvious targets already? It would be a lot easier for him to manage.
The fact that not a single person has been held to account tells me he’s reluctant to do much of anything. Barr has expressed concerns about the damage that has been done to our republic but he doesn’t walk the talk.
A wartime consiglieri wouldn’t be dragging his feet and would have already passed down several indictments by now in an effort to start the process of cleaning out the massive corruption in our government.
Thanks for the comment.
I should have worded that phrase differently.
I was not attacking President Trump. I was trying to stress how important it was.
Thanks for the insight.
Seriously??
You don't think Trump knows he is an outright war - 24/7/365??
Jesus.
The injunction is already there. It isnt an “I just disagree” statement from the judge.
If a person takes you to court over a fence you are building, and the judge issues an injunction, forcing you to stop, and you appeal, you dont get to keep building the fence as if an appeal being filled nullifies the injunction.
“But show me in the constitution where....blag blah blah”
It’s still the same whether you think its unfair or not.
“Pelosi as house speaker has been exposed also. Along with a number of RINOs.”
Honestly I get the feeling the main reason Trump wanted it to go to impeachment was to draw the cockroaches out of the woodwork. And with this action he can uncover both sides.
They have absolutely nothing on him for impeachment that can qualify for high crimes and misdemeanors as they have nothing but opinions based upon the primary witness who hasn’t been identified yet thus doesn’t exist. Without the primary witnessing, there is nothing but speculation.
rwood
Fregards.
MAGA 2020!
BINGO!
Big ships do not turn quickly.
He trusted other Americans in gov, but no more.
He trusted oath-takers to uphold their oaths, but no more.
He underestimated the vileness of D’rats, but no more.
He now has a lot of information on his enemies, knows they are actual enemies and will respond accordingly in the future.
The DC cesspool (swamps are natural and good things) is deep and full, requires active, big horsepower pumping out, not simple draining.
A lower Federal court judge has no jurisdiction over the President! By the President obeying a lower court injunction he is giving them power THEY DON'T HAVE. Only Congress, SCOTUS and voters have can hold the President accountable or stop a President from executing his official duties!!!!!
“We are not talking about any person. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT!”
So?
“A lower Federal court judge has no jurisdiction over the President! “
They do apparently, as we’ve seen numerous times for decades for presidents of both parties.
And just how the hell do you think SCOTUS make rulings unless the issue they rule on go through LOWER COURTS FIRST.
And can you point to me the part of the constitution where even SCOTUS has jurisdiction? No one can even find that.
But you obviously have an opinion with a lot of exclamation points......so ok.
They do apparently, as we’ve seen numerous times for decades for presidents of both parties.
I've asked you to show me in the US Constitution where this is codified but you can't. BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE.
And just how the hell do you think SCOTUS make rulings unless the issue they rule on go through LOWER COURTS FIRST.
Bone brain please listen to what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying a lower court can't disagree with the President. What I am saying they(judges) have no right to impose an injunction on Presidential executive action. They do have a right to take their case to the SCOTUS. If they(SCOTUS) hands down a ruling in favor of the lower court then and only then must the President cease and desist.
The current system that we have keeps the President at bay while the case meanders up through the courts to SCOTUS ( if we are lucky ). This is slow and there is no pressure for this to happen quickly. Meanwhile the citizenry is denied a President taking action on issues that they deemed important. My way is Constitutional and puts the pressure on the Judicatory and not the executive branch.
The real problem is you don't know what an injunction is for. It is simply a cease and desist order while a dispute (case) is adjudicated. I have no problem with a case being adjudicated and they can be adjudicated WITHOUT AN INJUNCTION. Get it? The left use the injunction as an end unto itself AND THAT IS WRONG.
“You are truly a hard headed person (or a lawyer). The President has power enumerated in the US Constitution so your ‘so’ comment says a lot.”
Again SO WHAT?
You can still bring the suit, and judges can make rulings.
Or do you forget all of the cases regarding gun rights? I dont seem to recall people just “ignoring” the rulings restricting it because “well the 2nd amendment says otherwise”.
So if you dont want that ambiguity out there, you contest the ruling to SCOTUS, through all of the other lower courts.
So how about you tell me where this isnt the case and stop acting like some jackass boomer like calling me “stupid, inane and incompetent” like you are some retard leftist on Twitter, because apparently you are the only person that seem to think what you keep barking is an actual thing.
“Bone brain please listen to what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying a lower court can’t disagree with the President. What I am saying they(judges) have no right to impose an injunction on Presidential executive action.”
AGAIN-—>SO WHAT?
No one cares what the hell YOU think, the REALITY is that this isnt the case and presidents of both parties have gone through this dance to solidify their actions with legal rulings so that they are not contested by dozens of people in the future.
Do you remember the suits against DACA? Or did you find those “unconstitutional”, and just didnt bother to inform the rest of us?
>I’ve asked you to show me in the US Constitution where this is codified but you can’t. BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE.
3rd time SO WHAT?
Neither are the powers of SCOTUS, which btw you dont seem to have a smarmy answer for even though you say they have the power to rule against the president.
> My way is Constitutional and puts the pressure on the Judicatory and not the executive branch.
1000s of constitutional experts, and they totally missed this? Ok, genius.
I cant wait for someone to use the “central_va defense”, just so it can quickly get laughed out of the courthouse.
>The real problem is you don’t know what an injunction is for. It is simply a cease and desist order while a dispute (case) is adjudicated.
That is what I just freaking said when I gave you the damn story about the fence building! You are the one saying that the injunctions can just be ignored.
God, you are literally not even keeping up with your own rhetoric! LOL!
“Trump should of canned every 0 appointee on day one.”
I agree that would have been nice but that is a lot of people and who would he have put in their place? He was not part of the political class and he had to rely on establishment republicans (who we now realize were not trustworthy).
I also feel Trump always wants to believe the best of people and until they prove otherwise, he will continue to do so (example Trudeau). I think he is a kind and trusting person who honestly believes most people want the best for the country and I think he never expected the friends he “had” (Democrats and Republicans) who he spent time with, donated to, etc., would have all turned on him like they did.
You cannot distinguish the the rules for the President are different and laid out in the US Constitution????? How ignorant and egotistical are you? You are fool ( i.e a lawyer).
The Constitution doesn't say that VanDeKook is a co equal branch of government BUT IT DOES SAY THAT ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE(PRESIDENT). Do you see the difference? Can you even make the distinction? This is why lawyers are despised and hated. You earned that. No f---ing common sense. You are projecting your civil laws and rules onto the EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT meaning the President. Your ego won't let admit that for the President The RULES are different and that the rules are laid out in the US Constitution for the one person, our President. You are simpleton pea brain who cannot comprehend that exception.
It's that or this; the lawyers and legal POS's in general think that they know better and feel comfortable having the President kowtow to the Judiciary. You ( legal POS's ) LIKE THAT. WE THE PEOPLE HATE THAT.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
--Shakespeare
“You cannot distinguish the the rules for the President are different and laid out in the US Constitution????”
LOL!
What a retard.
No, moron, the rules are not different. The constitution at no point says that no person can being a legal challenge to an executive action. We may not like what the Dems are doing or why, but they can, just like we can and have....with I’m sure no posts from you screaming about how invalid those were.
Yes, you can challenge stuff the president does in a court. You may get laughed out, you may get dismissed, but you CAN. There is NO PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT.
I cited the lawsuits againt DACA, as well as the lawsuits when I believe Obama was closing off land to energy exploration.
According to you, that is against the rules. Were they?
A simple yes or no is fine. If you reply with another wall of ranting, then I will just assume you rather not wreck your case by answering.
“You are simpleton pea brain who cannot comprehend that exception.”
LOL!
This is when the coot is running out of arguments. He hopes to dazzle people with a string of old man insults, like that is really bolstering your nonexistent argument.
I agree!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. The part you cannot understand is the injunction. That is "legislating from the bench" and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It surprises me that you, as a lawyer, do not understand the difference between that challenge, tort, lawsuit, and the "cease and desist" order i.e. the injunction.
It's not the challenge or the case itself these liberal judges care about rather it's stopping a President from taking action they oppose politically, the delay. It's the injunction what is important to these tyrannical POS in black robes. While challenge/case creeps around our corrupt legal system following the injunction is just playing their game. It's about power and you and your type are ruining the country. The President is I'll advised to follow lower court injunctions.
In summary, make a challenge to a Presidential EO, by all means go for it, injunction hell NO! The President has the prerogative, and I'd argue the obligation, to ignore a lower court injunction. Of course if SCOTUS hands out that injunction then POTUS would have to defer and follow the order. Get it?
POTUS has no reason to hold the American people hostage to a tyrannical lower court judge and legal system, a system you are part of.
“Trump knows he is in an outright war”
I greatly admire President Trump and what he has accomplished.
I said he is doing a great job.
I truly hope he realizes he is in an all out war. I hope he realizes how extensive and organized the movement to destroy him is.
“ I truly hope he realizes he is in an all out war
Of course he knows.
“I agree!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. The part you cannot understand is the injunction. That is “legislating from the bench” and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
“legislating from the bench” is not a legal term. If I brought a suit againt the Obama DoE regarding some EO that tied money to a school teaching transgender crap, and I got an injunction on that directive, was that “legislating from the bench”? Would it be ok for Obama to have ignored that injunction? Would it be wrong for that lower court ruling to have ever been made? Are they then not expected to take the ruling up the chain until it reached SCOTUS?
Or was my initial suit “unconstitutional” because I’m not a branch of government” and the rules are different because “he is president”?
“It’s not the challenge or the case itself these liberal judges care about rather it’s stopping a President from taking action they oppose politically”
Unfortunately that is an OPINION. May be correct, but it has no legal weight unless you are hoping that deriving the intention of the judge is an argument.
“In summary, make a challenge to a Presidential EO, by all means go for it”
Which was my point, that you kept saying was against the constitution...
“injunction hell NO! “
Your summary is just I dont like the ruling. Nothing you said is a solid constitutional case against what they CAN do.
Didnt say I like what the judges do, just that you need a legal argument that is rooted in precedent and reality.
Or you can have those judges impeached and tossed off the bench. And as other efforts of the same have demonstrated, you will have to have something far more solid than “judge man bad” to pull that off.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference Constitutionally, politically and legally between an injunction levied against a private citizen/corporation and a political injunction levied against a sitting President is the real issue. You must be really old, almost decrepit? Is that true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.