Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ryusei the Morning Star

Trump Administration Actions Thread

Recommended Posts

Sorry, but this isn't the American Educational System. Manafort was still convicted, and he still has a second trial in D.C. Try again.

I'm aware, the conviction rate in federal courts it near 100% 

 

Just goes further to show what a lame witch hunt this is. 

Read it again before making irrational conclusions regarding Mueller. The remaining ten are being left for a retrial, so it's not as if those charges have been thrown out.

Go take a law degree and come back to me Roxas, Mistrials means the evidence is weak to non-existent 

 

And again, remember how this all started on Collusion, none of the charges today were about collusion or even Russia. Sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think any of these foreign money dealings has to do with Russia, you haven't been paying attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me Mueller failed? 8/18 charges

Thanks to one of the jurors appearing on Fox News (ironic, isn't it?), the 10 mistrials were 11-1 in favor of conviction.

 

In further news, The Washington Post: Trump’s economic adviser: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/28/trump-wakes-up-googles-himself-and-doesnt-like-what-he-sees-illegal/

 

I'm not surprised that they are considering this, considering the government's past efforts to regulate the Internet. Still, it makes me worry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's angry that search results show he's an idiot. How embarrassing and hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they don't try and regulate Google searches.

 

I write. Sometimes I have to Google how bombs work okay?

 

Jokes aside it's a very silly idea and I kind of doubt it'll really go anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/ex-trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-agrees-to-plead-guilty-in-deal-with-special-counsel-robert-mueller.html

 

Manafort has agreed to a guilty plea for charges filed by Mueller's special counsel. He is being charged for conspiracy against the United States, and for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/ex-trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-agrees-to-plead-guilty-in-deal-with-special-counsel-robert-mueller.html

 

Manafort has agreed to a guilty plea for charges filed by Mueller's special counsel. He is being charged for conspiracy against the United States, and for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Looks like cooperation is in the deal too.

 

Bloomberg: Mueller Wins Manafort’s Cooperation in Plea Deal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-14/manafort-agrees-to-plead-guilty-to-avoid-new-washington-trial?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&utm_campaign=HP&cmpId=GP.HP

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone actually read the plea deal, it doesn't even mention Trump lol


https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1040640794091237376

 

Paul Manafort's cooperation agreement with the special counsel does not include matters involving the Trump campaign, according to a person familiar with the case, @@johnson_carrie reports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/johnson_carrie/status/1040648432501907456

 

Expanding on that report, Carrie Johnson added:

 
"BUT-- an important fact-- the plea agreement states that Manafort will cooperate "in any and all matter as to which the government deems the cooperation relevant" including "testifying fully, completely" to grand jury in DC"

Manafort's cooperation is regarding Russian interference, so while Trump was not explicitly stated, if the government does deem Trump relevant, then the plea deal can extend to anything involving Trump.

 

It has nothing to do with Trump now, but it can still involve him in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It has nothing to do with Trump now, but it can will involve him in the future.

 

Fixed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless he actually thinks he can do this, it just seems like pandering.

 

It's almost as if he doesn't realize how divisive he really is. There's no way this would sit well with people who aren't already supportive of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt he realizes how divisive he really is. At points it feels to me like where if you tell a lie for long enough, you start to believe it yourself. He'll pander to his base because he's convinced that it's the majority; just look at how Sarah Sanders claimed that Trump won by an overwhelming majority, when in fact he lost the popular vote. He knows it will alienate people, but he's convinced that it will be insignificant, and in fact his supporters will either overlook how it violates the 14th Amendment, or bend over backwards to claim it doesn't. Or just say the 14th Amendment itself is the problem, so it's "good" for Trump that he's fighting against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless he actually thinks he can do this, it just seems like pandering.

 

It's almost as if he doesn't realize how divisive he really is. There's no way this would sit well with people who aren't already supportive of it.

I doubt he realizes how divisive he really is. At points it feels to me like where if you tell a lie for long enough, you start to believe it yourself. He'll pander to his base because he's convinced that it's the majority; just look at how Sarah Sanders claimed that Trump won by an overwhelming majority, when in fact he lost the popular vote. He knows it will alienate people, but he's convinced that it will be insignificant, and in fact his supporters will either overlook how it violates the 14th Amendment, or bend over backwards to claim it doesn't. Or just say the 14th Amendment itself is the problem, so it's "good" for Trump that he's fighting against it.

Well the midterm elections are next week, so that just makes this even worse considering the implications. It seems Trump is wanting to counter a potential blue wave with one of his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless he actually thinks he can do this, it just seems like pandering.

 

It's almost as if he doesn't realize how divisive he really is. There's no way this would sit well with people who aren't already supportive of it.

he has the court, himself, and congress. he pretty much has a free pass to do whatever he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN: Trump says he plans to end birthright citizenship via executive order.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html

 

No, just no. He can't legally do this due to the 14th Amendment.

Blazingly hot and only halfway-informed/surface level informed take, the original proposer of part of the amendment, Jacob M. Howard, said that it doesn't apply/include citizens born in the USA who are foreigners or aliens and the rulings that were made to circumvent that only applied to parents with permanent US residence, or been there for 7 years+ and are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blazingly hot and only halfway-informed/surface level informed take, the original proposer of part of the amendment, Jacob M. Howard, said that it doesn't apply/include citizens born in the USA who are foreigners or aliens and the rulings that were made to circumvent that only applied to parents with permanent US residence, or been there for 7 years+ and are good.

Referring to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Referring to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)?

That, and INS v. Rios-pineda. Those are practically the only court cases I found for and not against birthright citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, and INS v. Rios-pineda. Those are practically the only court cases I found for and not against birthright citizenship.

But the issue isn't what it means, rather the issue is does Trump have the power to unilaterally abolish it? My answer is no. Congress has tried to narrow who gets birthright citizenship, but that has failed every time. If people want this issue properly dealt with, amend the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the issue isn't what it means, rather the issue is does Trump have the power to unilaterally abolish it? My answer is no. Congress has tried to narrow who gets birthright citizenship, but that has failed every time. If people want this issue properly dealt with, amend the Constitution.

Of course he can't just randomly abolish it on his own, it's in the constitution and even for his hubris/blindness he probably knows it or at least had one person near him point it out to him, which is why I think he's just doing this to go to court over it and try to argue it against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: birthright citizenship, here's the Senate's original record of the 1866 debate where the 14th Amendment's drafter, Jacob Howard, said it would not apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens"

 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11


But the issue isn't what it means, rather the issue is does Trump have the power to unilaterally abolish it? My answer is no. Congress has tried to narrow who gets birthright citizenship, but that has failed every time. If people want this issue properly dealt with, amend the Constitution.

That's why Obama used an amendment to make DACA a thing! Wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...