|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43598 Posts
On September 14 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:
If you would be willing to satisfy my curiousity xDaunt, in your opinion what was the year when specifically black political advocacy ceased to be justifiable? I'm making the assumption that you would presumably think that there were legitimate political causes that were divided on racial lines in, for example, the 1860s, but that you wouldn't agree that they still exist today (please let me know if that assumption is wrong, and if so why). I don't think that I am on board with the idea that black political advocacy has ceased being justifiable. There are clearly problems in the black community. Though these problems are not necessarily unique to the black community, they clearly are of a much larger magnitude there. Where I break with y'all on the left on these issues is whether racism is still the main problem. My answer to that is no, and for that reason, I believe that focusing on racism is not only misplaced but counterproductive.
Returning to the incredibly well trodden ground of voting in Alabama purely because we've both already established a common understanding there. I know you said it was fixed earlier this year but it's still a sufficiently current issue to be used as an example of current problems.
Would you have described that as a black issue?
|
On September 14 2017 05:50 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:45 zlefin wrote:On September 14 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon
Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.
In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”
The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.
These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”
A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”
While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”
This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.
For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”
[...]
lawnewz.comLong article, a bit too technical for me to understand but it might be interesting to the more legal minded. This whole thing seems very strange. Aye, it is an interesting article indeed. it is indeed a strange situation; the rest isn't that surprising though. The notion that judges ever truly followed the law, rather than following their opinions and then finding a justification for it, has been questioned for some time. It's just a bit potentially clearer in soem of these cases than in the past (of course here there's often far more justification for having to do something extraordinary than there was in the past; exceptional circumstances can lead to exceptional rulings). any particular strange point you want more thoughts on? if not that's fine. I guess this part later on. Show nested quote +Although the President allegedly has unfettered power to completely pardon anyone, Bolton has so far not taken action on Arpaio’s request that his conviction be thrown out based upon Trump’s pardon.
Rather that accede to this request, Bolton has directed both Arpaio and the Justice Department to file briefs on the legal issue of whether she should grant his request. This arguably flies in the face of a 1925 Supreme Court decision which unanimously upheld a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence; exactly the unusual type of pardon involved here.
However, not granting Arpaio’s motion may provide the only way in which the President’s pardoning power – including his power to pardon those involved in the Mueller investigation to keep them from flipping – can be challenged in court, and possibly provoke a judicial ruling limiting its sweep.
Thus, constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has suggested that one way the President’s seemingly unfettered pardon power might be challenged would be for her to refuse to fully recognize it.
He said “in theory, Judge Susan Bolton, the judge in the case, could say that, notwithstanding the pardon and notwithstanding Ex Parte Grossman [in 1925], she believes the law has changed sufficiently that she can go ahead and sentence Arpaio. Arpaio would appeal, and the Ninth Circuit could then affirm Judge Bolton.” In such a ruling, Bolton could cite a much later 1987 ruling in which the Court said “The ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders is regarded as essential to ensuring that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on other Branches.”
In short, many judges, in addition to wanting to oppose much of what Trump does because they strongly object to him and his orders, may also be willing to bend and stretch the law – including venturing into uncharted waters such as his pardon power, or his power to fire prosecutors who do not comply with his priorities – because Trump has repeatedly attacked judges, by name as well as collectively.
It is likely that other judges strongly resent such attacks, both openly and perhaps even subconsciously, because judges are not ethically permitted to speak out and defend his own actions from attack, but also because an attack on several named judges is likely to be seen as an attack on all of them.
There may be little that Trump can do – short of an ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where he may find a more sympathetic audience – if judges including Bolton decide that stopping some of what they may regard as his outrageous actions requires some obstruction – or at least manipulation – of justice.
If so, many may regard this as poetic justice for a runaway president, but it is not the way law is supposed to work.
I just don't see how that logic holds up? At the very least, it seems absurdly unlikely to actually work, I would think.
It is the only venue they have to bring to challenge the pardon. The way Trump ignored justice department guidelines and just issued the pardon before sentencing had taken place sort of assured this. It might not work, but the challenge going to the Supreme court could prompt action from congress. Especially if they think Trump will go on a pardoning spree.
|
Norway28743 Posts
On September 14 2017 05:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So in theory, you're fine with terms like cultural Randism if a libertarian school of thought achieved influence on a similar level to the Frankfurt School? Why not? If there's a connection to Rand, I don't see the problem.
I'm honestly not intimately familiar with her works, but I've had the impression that she, like Marx, is more about economy than culture, and that it'd be a pretty meaningless term. Honestly kind of secondary though, my main argument against the term is more along the lines of;
What if the term is hardly ever used, but then gains popularity following a leftist timothy mcweigh who attacks and kills 100 boyscouts during the 2018 boyscout Jamboree where he prior to attacking posts an online manifesto where he specifies that he targeted those boyscouts because they were likely to be future representatives of Cultural Randism, a term that is consistently used to denigrate the political opponents of leftist timothy mcweigh. That's actually a pretty perfect parallel. And I can guarantee that I'd avoid the term if this is how it came to achieve notoriety. 
|
United States43598 Posts
On September 14 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:50 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2017 05:45 zlefin wrote:On September 14 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon
Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.
In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”
The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.
These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”
A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”
While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”
This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.
For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”
[...]
lawnewz.comLong article, a bit too technical for me to understand but it might be interesting to the more legal minded. This whole thing seems very strange. Aye, it is an interesting article indeed. it is indeed a strange situation; the rest isn't that surprising though. The notion that judges ever truly followed the law, rather than following their opinions and then finding a justification for it, has been questioned for some time. It's just a bit potentially clearer in soem of these cases than in the past (of course here there's often far more justification for having to do something extraordinary than there was in the past; exceptional circumstances can lead to exceptional rulings). any particular strange point you want more thoughts on? if not that's fine. I guess this part later on. Although the President allegedly has unfettered power to completely pardon anyone, Bolton has so far not taken action on Arpaio’s request that his conviction be thrown out based upon Trump’s pardon.
Rather that accede to this request, Bolton has directed both Arpaio and the Justice Department to file briefs on the legal issue of whether she should grant his request. This arguably flies in the face of a 1925 Supreme Court decision which unanimously upheld a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence; exactly the unusual type of pardon involved here.
However, not granting Arpaio’s motion may provide the only way in which the President’s pardoning power – including his power to pardon those involved in the Mueller investigation to keep them from flipping – can be challenged in court, and possibly provoke a judicial ruling limiting its sweep.
Thus, constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has suggested that one way the President’s seemingly unfettered pardon power might be challenged would be for her to refuse to fully recognize it.
He said “in theory, Judge Susan Bolton, the judge in the case, could say that, notwithstanding the pardon and notwithstanding Ex Parte Grossman [in 1925], she believes the law has changed sufficiently that she can go ahead and sentence Arpaio. Arpaio would appeal, and the Ninth Circuit could then affirm Judge Bolton.” In such a ruling, Bolton could cite a much later 1987 ruling in which the Court said “The ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders is regarded as essential to ensuring that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on other Branches.”
In short, many judges, in addition to wanting to oppose much of what Trump does because they strongly object to him and his orders, may also be willing to bend and stretch the law – including venturing into uncharted waters such as his pardon power, or his power to fire prosecutors who do not comply with his priorities – because Trump has repeatedly attacked judges, by name as well as collectively.
It is likely that other judges strongly resent such attacks, both openly and perhaps even subconsciously, because judges are not ethically permitted to speak out and defend his own actions from attack, but also because an attack on several named judges is likely to be seen as an attack on all of them.
There may be little that Trump can do – short of an ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where he may find a more sympathetic audience – if judges including Bolton decide that stopping some of what they may regard as his outrageous actions requires some obstruction – or at least manipulation – of justice.
If so, many may regard this as poetic justice for a runaway president, but it is not the way law is supposed to work.
I just don't see how that logic holds up? At the very least, it seems absurdly unlikely to actually work, I would think. It is the only venue they have to bring to challenge the pardon. The way Trump ignored justice department guidelines and just issued the pardon before sentencing had taken place sort of assured this. It might not work, but the challenge going to the Supreme court could prompt action from congress. Especially if they think Trump will go on a pardoning spree.
Their argument that the pardon cannot be used in a way that amounts to a violation of the constitution is almost certainly correct. The problem is that I don't know that this pardon qualifies. Logically it's not possible for the power of the pardon to be unlimited within a constitutional system, but that doesn't mean that it is limited in this case.
|
On September 14 2017 05:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:
If you would be willing to satisfy my curiousity xDaunt, in your opinion what was the year when specifically black political advocacy ceased to be justifiable? I'm making the assumption that you would presumably think that there were legitimate political causes that were divided on racial lines in, for example, the 1860s, but that you wouldn't agree that they still exist today (please let me know if that assumption is wrong, and if so why). I don't think that I am on board with the idea that black political advocacy has ceased being justifiable. There are clearly problems in the black community. Though these problems are not necessarily unique to the black community, they clearly are of a much larger magnitude there. Where I break with y'all on the left on these issues is whether racism is still the main problem. My answer to that is no, and for that reason, I believe that focusing on racism is not only misplaced but counterproductive. Returning to the incredibly well trodden ground of voting in Alabama purely because we've both already established a common understanding there. I know you said it was fixed earlier this year but it's still a sufficiently current issue to be used as an example of current problems. Would you have described that as a black issue?
What, are you really going to blame voter suppression in Alabama for the fact that a stupidly large majority of black babies nationally are born out of wedlock? Let's focus on the big issues.
|
On September 14 2017 05:31 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:10 LegalLord wrote:
It is perhaps most relevant to modern discourse as political commentary though. "1984" is almost synonymous with a police state where independent thought isn't allowed, and that's perhaps where it falls short the most in terms of being a good story. The conceptual framework for how such a society would work is not at all prescient, and the specific policies for how that society is controlled are hardly relevant to the modern world. For a work focused so strongly on society, there is a notable dearth of characters that you can actually look at who are not one-dimensional; the only characters who were at all well-considered were O'Brien and Emmanuel Goldstein. And yet individuals call back to 1984 as if it were prescient rather than quite frankly farcical. Perhaps the head-scratching logic of Hillary's comparison as twitted on the last page best illustrates how pointless most of the crap in that book is as meaningful social commentary. There's an appendix at the end, did you read it?
Yes. And?
|
United States43598 Posts
On September 14 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:58 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:
If you would be willing to satisfy my curiousity xDaunt, in your opinion what was the year when specifically black political advocacy ceased to be justifiable? I'm making the assumption that you would presumably think that there were legitimate political causes that were divided on racial lines in, for example, the 1860s, but that you wouldn't agree that they still exist today (please let me know if that assumption is wrong, and if so why). I don't think that I am on board with the idea that black political advocacy has ceased being justifiable. There are clearly problems in the black community. Though these problems are not necessarily unique to the black community, they clearly are of a much larger magnitude there. Where I break with y'all on the left on these issues is whether racism is still the main problem. My answer to that is no, and for that reason, I believe that focusing on racism is not only misplaced but counterproductive. Returning to the incredibly well trodden ground of voting in Alabama purely because we've both already established a common understanding there. I know you said it was fixed earlier this year but it's still a sufficiently current issue to be used as an example of current problems. Would you have described that as a black issue? What, are you really going to blame voter suppression in Alabama for the fact that a stupidly large majority of black babies nationally are born out of wedlock? Let's focus on the big issues.
I have no idea where your response came from or what it is referring to.
The blame for black voter suppression in Alabama was an explicitly racist constitution that was designed, publicly and intentionally, to allow local white dominated institutions to control access to the ballot through arbitrary restrictions. That system was in place, unchanged, as recently as the 2016 election, with local polling officials empowered to arbitrarily deny the franchise to individuals at their own discretion.
Would you describe that as a black issue?
I literally have no idea what you're talking about with regards to black babies or wedlock. I'm also not sure which issues are bigger than voting rights in a democracy.
|
On September 14 2017 05:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon
Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.
In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”
The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.
These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”
A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”
While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”
This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.
For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”
[...]
lawnewz.comLong article, a bit too technical for me to understand but it might be interesting to the more legal minded. This whole thing seems very strange. Basically the article discusses how the judiciary is going out of its way to obstruct Trump "just cuz" notwithstanding existing precedent.
Though I'd expect bias from you for such a pointed statement, in this case I think that's exactly right.
|
On September 14 2017 05:50 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:45 zlefin wrote:On September 14 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon
Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.
In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”
The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.
These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”
A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”
While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”
This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.
For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”
[...]
lawnewz.comLong article, a bit too technical for me to understand but it might be interesting to the more legal minded. This whole thing seems very strange. Aye, it is an interesting article indeed. it is indeed a strange situation; the rest isn't that surprising though. The notion that judges ever truly followed the law, rather than following their opinions and then finding a justification for it, has been questioned for some time. It's just a bit potentially clearer in soem of these cases than in the past (of course here there's often far more justification for having to do something extraordinary than there was in the past; exceptional circumstances can lead to exceptional rulings). any particular strange point you want more thoughts on? if not that's fine. I guess this part later on. Show nested quote +Although the President allegedly has unfettered power to completely pardon anyone, Bolton has so far not taken action on Arpaio’s request that his conviction be thrown out based upon Trump’s pardon.
Rather that accede to this request, Bolton has directed both Arpaio and the Justice Department to file briefs on the legal issue of whether she should grant his request. This arguably flies in the face of a 1925 Supreme Court decision which unanimously upheld a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence; exactly the unusual type of pardon involved here.
However, not granting Arpaio’s motion may provide the only way in which the President’s pardoning power – including his power to pardon those involved in the Mueller investigation to keep them from flipping – can be challenged in court, and possibly provoke a judicial ruling limiting its sweep.
Thus, constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has suggested that one way the President’s seemingly unfettered pardon power might be challenged would be for her to refuse to fully recognize it.
He said “in theory, Judge Susan Bolton, the judge in the case, could say that, notwithstanding the pardon and notwithstanding Ex Parte Grossman [in 1925], she believes the law has changed sufficiently that she can go ahead and sentence Arpaio. Arpaio would appeal, and the Ninth Circuit could then affirm Judge Bolton.” In such a ruling, Bolton could cite a much later 1987 ruling in which the Court said “The ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders is regarded as essential to ensuring that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on other Branches.”
In short, many judges, in addition to wanting to oppose much of what Trump does because they strongly object to him and his orders, may also be willing to bend and stretch the law – including venturing into uncharted waters such as his pardon power, or his power to fire prosecutors who do not comply with his priorities – because Trump has repeatedly attacked judges, by name as well as collectively.
It is likely that other judges strongly resent such attacks, both openly and perhaps even subconsciously, because judges are not ethically permitted to speak out and defend his own actions from attack, but also because an attack on several named judges is likely to be seen as an attack on all of them.
There may be little that Trump can do – short of an ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where he may find a more sympathetic audience – if judges including Bolton decide that stopping some of what they may regard as his outrageous actions requires some obstruction – or at least manipulation – of justice.
If so, many may regard this as poetic justice for a runaway president, but it is not the way law is supposed to work.
I just don't see how that logic holds up? At the very least, it seems absurdly unlikely to actually work, I would think.
If i'm understanding what you're getting at correctly; the logic indeed doesn't hold up that well at all; but not all the arguments are in yet, and more arguments may yet be found. It is quite unlikely it would work; but not impossible. I mean, if someone who obviously should not be president is allowed to damage and seek to destroy the democracy by being president, and so many allow it to happen, there's a lot of strange things going on. 90 year old precedents do get overturned sometimes; or adjusted so as to find some difference between the cases to justify finding differently in them.
Exceptional cases lead to exceptional rulings; and the more blatant and egregious the violations of good conduct, the more blatant countermeasures to those will be in order to try to fix them.
|
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's nominee for the No. 2 spot at the Federal Emergency Management Agency withdrew from consideration on Wednesday after NBC News raised questions about a federal investigation that found he had falsified government travel and timekeeping records when he served in the Bush administration in 2005.
"Given the distraction this will cause the Agency in a time when they cannot afford to lose focus, I have withdrawn from my nomination," the former nominee, Daniel A. Craig, said in an email to NBC News.
The investigation, jointly conducted by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, concluded there was insufficient evidence that Craig had violated conflict-of-interest laws in the awarding of huge FEMA contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to a 2011 report that has never been made public but which was reviewed by NBC News.
But the investigation revealed conduct by Craig, specifically falsification of records, that could have become a major stumbling block in his confirmation by the Senate.
With FEMA back in the news because of the recent hurricanes, and still smarting from its inadequate response to Katrina, senators would have had to decide whether he should be the person they want running its day-to-day operations.
Craig said he was withdrawing his nomination after NBC News contacted him about the report. He also said there was information in the report that was incorrect and the result of "poor" investigating and added that the IG had failed to follow up on information investigators were given at the time.
Craig was never charged with a crime for his actions and maintains he did nothing wrong. He said he properly accounted for all of the hours he worked.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-fema-nominee-withdraws-after-nbc-questions-falsified-records-n800856
|
On September 14 2017 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 05:50 Nevuk wrote:On September 14 2017 05:45 zlefin wrote:On September 14 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon
Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.
In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”
The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.
These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”
A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”
While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”
This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.
For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”
[...]
lawnewz.comLong article, a bit too technical for me to understand but it might be interesting to the more legal minded. This whole thing seems very strange. Aye, it is an interesting article indeed. it is indeed a strange situation; the rest isn't that surprising though. The notion that judges ever truly followed the law, rather than following their opinions and then finding a justification for it, has been questioned for some time. It's just a bit potentially clearer in soem of these cases than in the past (of course here there's often far more justification for having to do something extraordinary than there was in the past; exceptional circumstances can lead to exceptional rulings). any particular strange point you want more thoughts on? if not that's fine. I guess this part later on. Although the President allegedly has unfettered power to completely pardon anyone, Bolton has so far not taken action on Arpaio’s request that his conviction be thrown out based upon Trump’s pardon.
Rather that accede to this request, Bolton has directed both Arpaio and the Justice Department to file briefs on the legal issue of whether she should grant his request. This arguably flies in the face of a 1925 Supreme Court decision which unanimously upheld a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence; exactly the unusual type of pardon involved here.
However, not granting Arpaio’s motion may provide the only way in which the President’s pardoning power – including his power to pardon those involved in the Mueller investigation to keep them from flipping – can be challenged in court, and possibly provoke a judicial ruling limiting its sweep.
Thus, constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has suggested that one way the President’s seemingly unfettered pardon power might be challenged would be for her to refuse to fully recognize it.
He said “in theory, Judge Susan Bolton, the judge in the case, could say that, notwithstanding the pardon and notwithstanding Ex Parte Grossman [in 1925], she believes the law has changed sufficiently that she can go ahead and sentence Arpaio. Arpaio would appeal, and the Ninth Circuit could then affirm Judge Bolton.” In such a ruling, Bolton could cite a much later 1987 ruling in which the Court said “The ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders is regarded as essential to ensuring that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on other Branches.”
In short, many judges, in addition to wanting to oppose much of what Trump does because they strongly object to him and his orders, may also be willing to bend and stretch the law – including venturing into uncharted waters such as his pardon power, or his power to fire prosecutors who do not comply with his priorities – because Trump has repeatedly attacked judges, by name as well as collectively.
It is likely that other judges strongly resent such attacks, both openly and perhaps even subconsciously, because judges are not ethically permitted to speak out and defend his own actions from attack, but also because an attack on several named judges is likely to be seen as an attack on all of them.
There may be little that Trump can do – short of an ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where he may find a more sympathetic audience – if judges including Bolton decide that stopping some of what they may regard as his outrageous actions requires some obstruction – or at least manipulation – of justice.
If so, many may regard this as poetic justice for a runaway president, but it is not the way law is supposed to work.
I just don't see how that logic holds up? At the very least, it seems absurdly unlikely to actually work, I would think. It is the only venue they have to bring to challenge the pardon. The way Trump ignored justice department guidelines and just issued the pardon before sentencing had taken place sort of assured this. It might not work, but the challenge going to the Supreme court could prompt action from congress. Especially if they think Trump will go on a pardoning spree. Their argument that the pardon cannot be used in a way that amounts to a violation of the constitution is almost certainly correct. The problem is that I don't know that this pardon qualifies. Logically not possible for the power of the pardon to be unlimited within a constitutional system, but that doesn't mean that it is limited in this case.
I have no idea how to raise that issue, but it could be a valid one. It is an area of law that seems unexplored. I don’t’ know how you get charged with violating someone’s constitutional rights.
|
On September 14 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:58 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:
If you would be willing to satisfy my curiousity xDaunt, in your opinion what was the year when specifically black political advocacy ceased to be justifiable? I'm making the assumption that you would presumably think that there were legitimate political causes that were divided on racial lines in, for example, the 1860s, but that you wouldn't agree that they still exist today (please let me know if that assumption is wrong, and if so why). I don't think that I am on board with the idea that black political advocacy has ceased being justifiable. There are clearly problems in the black community. Though these problems are not necessarily unique to the black community, they clearly are of a much larger magnitude there. Where I break with y'all on the left on these issues is whether racism is still the main problem. My answer to that is no, and for that reason, I believe that focusing on racism is not only misplaced but counterproductive. Returning to the incredibly well trodden ground of voting in Alabama purely because we've both already established a common understanding there. I know you said it was fixed earlier this year but it's still a sufficiently current issue to be used as an example of current problems. Would you have described that as a black issue? What, are you really going to blame voter suppression in Alabama for the fact that a stupidly large majority of black babies nationally are born out of wedlock? Let's focus on the big issues. I have no idea where your response came from or what it is referring to. The blame for black voter suppression in Alabama was an explicitly racist constitution that was designed, publicly and intentionally, to allow local white dominated institutions to control access to the ballot through arbitrary restrictions. That system was in place, unchanged, as recently as the 2016 election, with local polling officials empowered to arbitrarily deny the franchise to individuals at their own discretion. Would you describe that as a black issue? I literally have no idea what you're talking about with regards to black babies or wedlock. I'm also not sure which issues are bigger than voting rights in a democracy.
Well, I'll happily spell it out for you. To the extent that there was voter suppression in Alabama due to the ambiguity in the language of the law at issue, the impact was only on thousands of voters in Alabama. Let's just accept that it was wrong. So what? You think the fix that was enacted in Alabama is really going to make a real difference for black families across the country? Of course not. Y'all on the Left like to talk a big game about helping black people, but when it comes to big problems, y'all are always AWOL. There's only one place to start if you are really serious about helping black people: the break down of the black family and the absolute disaster that is black demographics, which is why I was raised the issue of all of the black children being born out of wedlock. We can praise single moms and single parent households all day long, the bottom line is that any kid who grows up in a single-parent household is greatly disadvantaged compared to a kid growing up in a 2-parent household. This problem fucks over blacks, whites, hispanics, and polka-dot-skinned people equally.
|
United States43598 Posts
On September 14 2017 06:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:58 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:
If you would be willing to satisfy my curiousity xDaunt, in your opinion what was the year when specifically black political advocacy ceased to be justifiable? I'm making the assumption that you would presumably think that there were legitimate political causes that were divided on racial lines in, for example, the 1860s, but that you wouldn't agree that they still exist today (please let me know if that assumption is wrong, and if so why). I don't think that I am on board with the idea that black political advocacy has ceased being justifiable. There are clearly problems in the black community. Though these problems are not necessarily unique to the black community, they clearly are of a much larger magnitude there. Where I break with y'all on the left on these issues is whether racism is still the main problem. My answer to that is no, and for that reason, I believe that focusing on racism is not only misplaced but counterproductive. Returning to the incredibly well trodden ground of voting in Alabama purely because we've both already established a common understanding there. I know you said it was fixed earlier this year but it's still a sufficiently current issue to be used as an example of current problems. Would you have described that as a black issue? What, are you really going to blame voter suppression in Alabama for the fact that a stupidly large majority of black babies nationally are born out of wedlock? Let's focus on the big issues. I have no idea where your response came from or what it is referring to. The blame for black voter suppression in Alabama was an explicitly racist constitution that was designed, publicly and intentionally, to allow local white dominated institutions to control access to the ballot through arbitrary restrictions. That system was in place, unchanged, as recently as the 2016 election, with local polling officials empowered to arbitrarily deny the franchise to individuals at their own discretion. Would you describe that as a black issue? I literally have no idea what you're talking about with regards to black babies or wedlock. I'm also not sure which issues are bigger than voting rights in a democracy. Well, I'll happily spell it out for you. To the extent that there was voter suppression in Alabama due to the ambiguity in the language of the law at issue, the impact was only on thousands of voters in Alabama. Let's just accept that it was wrong. So what? You think the fix that was enacted in Alabama is really going to make a real difference for black families across the country? Of course not. Y'all on the Left like to talk a big game about helping black people, but when it comes to big problems, y'all are always AWOL. There's only one place to start if you are really serious about helping black people: the break down of the black family and the absolute disaster that is black demographics, which is why I was raised the issue of all of the black children being born out of wedlock. We can praise single moms and single parent households all day long, the bottom line is that any kid who grows up in a single-parent household is greatly disadvantaged compared to a kid growing up in a 2-parent household. This problem fucks over blacks, whites, hispanics, and polka-dot-skinned people equally.
I think you misunderstood what I was asking.
The question I was asking you was whether you thought that the voter suppression in Alabama was a black issue?
|
On September 14 2017 06:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:58 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:
If you would be willing to satisfy my curiousity xDaunt, in your opinion what was the year when specifically black political advocacy ceased to be justifiable? I'm making the assumption that you would presumably think that there were legitimate political causes that were divided on racial lines in, for example, the 1860s, but that you wouldn't agree that they still exist today (please let me know if that assumption is wrong, and if so why). I don't think that I am on board with the idea that black political advocacy has ceased being justifiable. There are clearly problems in the black community. Though these problems are not necessarily unique to the black community, they clearly are of a much larger magnitude there. Where I break with y'all on the left on these issues is whether racism is still the main problem. My answer to that is no, and for that reason, I believe that focusing on racism is not only misplaced but counterproductive. Returning to the incredibly well trodden ground of voting in Alabama purely because we've both already established a common understanding there. I know you said it was fixed earlier this year but it's still a sufficiently current issue to be used as an example of current problems. Would you have described that as a black issue? What, are you really going to blame voter suppression in Alabama for the fact that a stupidly large majority of black babies nationally are born out of wedlock? Let's focus on the big issues. I have no idea where your response came from or what it is referring to. The blame for black voter suppression in Alabama was an explicitly racist constitution that was designed, publicly and intentionally, to allow local white dominated institutions to control access to the ballot through arbitrary restrictions. That system was in place, unchanged, as recently as the 2016 election, with local polling officials empowered to arbitrarily deny the franchise to individuals at their own discretion. Would you describe that as a black issue? I literally have no idea what you're talking about with regards to black babies or wedlock. I'm also not sure which issues are bigger than voting rights in a democracy. Well, I'll happily spell it out for you. To the extent that there was voter suppression in Alabama due to the ambiguity in the language of the law at issue, the impact was only on thousands of voters in Alabama. Let's just accept that it was wrong. So what? You think the fix that was enacted in Alabama is really going to make a real difference for black families across the country? Of course not. Y'all on the Left like to talk a big game about helping black people, but when it comes to big problems, y'all are always AWOL. There's only one place to start if you are really serious about helping black people: the break down of the black family and the absolute disaster that is black demographics, which is why I was raised the issue of all of the black children being born out of wedlock. We can praise single moms and single parent households all day long, the bottom line is that any kid who grows up in a single-parent household is greatly disadvantaged compared to a kid growing up in a 2-parent household. This problem fucks over blacks, whites, hispanics, and polka-dot-skinned people equally.
I mean the obvious part making this wrong is having 1 good parent vs 2 shitty ones but that's not the point.
I feel like you're saying this "it's a bad families problem" isn't appreciating the repeated attempts by the US government and racist locals to intentionally destroy black families, and as such you don't view the federal government or locals as responsible for financing that repair which you seem to think is the source problem (which is absurd but whatever).
|
I was about to say that the number of black men in prison due to three strikes laws might be the root of the problem. Rather than some mythical “cultural” issue.
And I’m not sure what this has to do with suppression of the black vote.
|
|
|
On September 14 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon
Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.
In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”
The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.
These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”
A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”
While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”
This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.
For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”
[...]
lawnewz.comLong article, a bit too technical for me to understand but it might be interesting to the more legal minded. This whole thing seems very strange.
Basic idea seems simple enough. If you hold that the President can simply pardon officials who commit unconstitutional acts, then you only have a Constitution when the President decides you do.
|
it's crazy to me that people in this day and age think racism isn't still alive. In about 1/5 of my dota games I have someone chanting "white power" because someone else fed first blood. My old boss was an asian woman and people made weird racial remarks all the time or would ask her "where are you from?"
|
On September 14 2017 07:08 harodihg wrote:
Or would ask her "where are you from?"
Everything else aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong or offensive about that.
|
Life comes at you fast sometimes
NEW YORK — A federal judge on Wednesday revoked the $5 million bail of Martin Shkreli, the infamous former hedge fund manager convicted of defrauding investors, after prosecutors complained that his out-of-court antics posed a danger to the community.
While awaiting sentencing, Shkreli has harassed women online, prosecutors argued, and even offered his Facebook followers $5,000 to grab a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair during her book tour. Shkreli, who faces up to 20 years in prison, apologized saying that he did not expect anyone to take his online comments seriously.
“He does not need to apologize to me. He should have apologized to the government, the Secret Service, and Hillary Clinton,” said U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, in revoking his bond.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
