Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb? None - Trump tells them that he alone fixed it & they sit in the dark & applaud."

Funny!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb? None - Trump tells them that he alone fixed it & they sit in the dark & applaud."

Funny!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb? None - Trump tells them that he alone fixed it & they sit in the dark & applaud."

Funny!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb? None - Trump tells them that he alone fixed it & they sit in the dark & applaud."

Funny!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb? None - Trump tells them that he alone fixed it & they sit in the dark & applaud."

Funny!

Originally Posted by James Brown

Funny!

Do you know what’s really funny … me sitting in the hot tub, punching “post” on my iPad over and over again because I don’t think it’s registering my wet finger tip. Sorry about that!

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Whaddya' think???  

I think this is the most disgusting and disturbed thing you have ever posted, and that is saying a lot.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

He said 'jazzed'?

Maybe a typo...

Dave

Literally LOL

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Yeah, well, like most states, Texas is more purple than red. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, though. There will be plenty of opposition to his mass deportation plans. I guarantee you the Pentagon is gearing up for a fight and is not merely setting back on its laurels, waiting for Trump to issue unlawful orders and purge its upper ranks. Similarly, Democrats and other opposition groups, I'm sure, have plans and lawsuits just waiting in the wings. The thing about all of Trump's plans I find the most unsettling though, is that so many people said, "Oh, it's just campaign rhetoric. He's not going to actually enact these policies," yet here we are.

This bolded part is premised on an oversimplification James.  Trump might have the desire to enact his rhetoric - but he does not have a magic wand to wave causing the deportation of the entirety of the Texas (or other states) construction laborer base.  So, expect a lot more rhetoric and far less deportations than promised.  I personally believe that it will be a huge, worthy, but probably unattainable goal to deport the active criminals, much less the honest guy who has been drywalling in Houston for 10 years.

Same deal with the pentagon and much of Trump's other overheated campaign promises.  Implementation is not going to be easy, or even possible, even if Trump has the will (which I doubt).  It is not like the Generals are going to roll over like puppies.

So in my view, we as a nation (and our allies Dave) are not going to be OK just because it is "campaign rhetoric."  No, we are going to be OK because any actual implementation is going to look a lot different than the worst case scenarios being floated on the left post-election.

We owe it to ourselves to create a score-card to track some of this stuff.  I'll think about that, but if anyone has a good starting list of campaign rhetoric that worries you, feel free to post it.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The cases by Jack Smith were not "thrown out." But don't expect anyone like Rich ever to admit otherwise. Everything I've read says Smith asked them to be dismissed on long-standing DOJ policy not to prosecute a sitting President. What's happened here is that someone federally indicted got elected President. It has everything to do with procedure and nothing to do with the merit of the cases. It's possible the charges would be reopened in four years, and from what I read, charges against Trump's co-defendants are proceeding in at least the Mar-a-Lago documents case. But, as I said, don't expect Rich or the MAGA cult to see it as anything else other than a total exoneration.

The above is all correct, according to my reading James.  I seriously doubt the documents case continues against anyone though.  You might recall the Judge dismissed based upon the DOJ's lack of authority to appoint outside counsel (Smith) as a special prosecutor.  The Watergate era special counsel statute has expired, and the DOJ was, in the Judge's opinion (mine too), torturing other statutes for authority to appoint an outsider like Smith.   So, when we last discussed this (in a very detailed thread) the DOJ had two options, win an appeal on the merits of DOJ authority under the handful of statutes used to appoint Smith, or appoint a non-special counsel DOJ employed US attorney to finish the prosecution, thus sidestepping the issue.   

As an aside, I thought it relevant that Garland chose to go with Smith in the first place rather than asking a US attorney to take the case.  I think a prosecutor any less aggressive that Smith, who is extremely aggressive by all accounts, would not have taken such a politically charged case.  That has not changed.  IIRC Rod disagreed vehemently in the other thread, months ago.

In any case, the above procedural issues are important, and apply to any defendant, not just Trump.   The DOJ started the appeal process right away.  It would be important to Garland to preserve his option of appointing special counsel.  But I seriously doubt the DOJ finishes the appeal once Trump appoints a new Attorney General.  I also doubt any US attorney employed by the DOJ takes up the case.   So I reckon the co-defendants are off the hook too.