What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

BassAle said:
I don't consider her lie trivial. Her husband was a war criminal.



What is ridiculous that is the argument that any lie, no matter how trivial, is grounds for revoking citizenship. Like saying you have not committed any crimes when you may have driven over the speed limit without getting a ticket...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. He served in a unit that had committed war atrocities. Whether his platoon, or he himself did so, remains speculation.

Unless there is confirming evidence provided in the links I have not read.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
The feds, during the Obama administration, indicted this woman for this trivial lie in 2013. In 2014 they convicted her, using the standard now being mocked by the SCOTUS. The Obama administration argued against her in her appeal to the 6th Circuit in 2015. I know, false equivalency, amiright?
Click to expand...

And they were wrong.

I know you think that is like your big gotcha moment but unlike the current Right most of us will call a spade a spade. One of the things most liberals didnt like about Obama was that he deported people in high volume. (plus it is Trump's attorney arguing not Obama's)

Care to try again?
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

dxmnkd316 said:
Actually, this does raise a good question:

Where do you draw that line (today) and who draws it? It kind of goes back to your "all red shirts are banned" analogy when we were discussing executive orders. What constitutes a red shirt? Or in this case, what constitutes a material lie? Is it laid out in law? If not does that mean the POTUS can unilaterally lay that out?
Click to expand...

I think in cases like this you cant make a hard and fast rule. Each red shirt (better dead than red!) must be evaluated on its own merit.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Handyman said:
And they were wrong.

I know you think that is like your big gotcha moment but unlike the current Right most of us will call a spade a spade. One of the things most liberals didnt like about Obama was that he deported people in high volume. (plus it is Trump's attorney arguing not Obama's)

Care to try again?
Click to expand...
It's not a gotcha moment at all. I just found it to be a bit of a stretch, even by the standards of these threads, to make this about Trump and his administration, as you did by including his name in the link and putting it in the POTUS thread as opposed to the SCOTUS or immigration threads floating around here.

Yeah, "his" lawyer had a pretty tough day, it sounds like. Personally I have a little sympathy for him. He was sent in to defend a pretty ridiculous position that was at least initially generated by the Obama justice department. The trial court instructed the jury there was no materiality element to be applied to her lies. The sixth circuit, at the request of the Obama justice department, and for reasons that aren't entirely clear, went against a number of other circuits and agreed with the trial court.

Now, this lawyer in his very first case before the Supremes, gets to go in and get gored. Those were probably the easiest questions in the world for the Supremes to come up with. The lawyer either has to argue there is literally no material element to this crime, so yes, lying about your weight is still a qualifying lie, or concede that lies about immaterial things shouldn't be a basis for deporting her and thus gutting the sixth circuit opinion and accepting the loss. Not a lot of great choices for him, regardless of how prepared he was.

This was a case the Supremes accepted because some circuits were saying materiality is implied, and the sixth rejected that. That's the decision the Supremes want to spank down.
 
SJHovey said:
Not a lot of great choices for him, regardless of how prepared he was.
Click to expand...

Malarkey. Seasoned court attorneys can see those kids of traps coming and know how to deflect, parry, and twist their ways out of getting stuck in such lose lose parade of horribles.

They also know when to give an inch so as to not lose a mile, something this guy didn't even attempt.

Plus, I can't help laughing at his title. "Assistant to the Solicitor General." Dwight Schrute would be proud.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The best part is Melania would be up for deportation based on this standard since she worked in the US while ineligible to do so and failed to disclose it. Of course based on how Dumpster treats her, this may be his plan.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

jerphisch said:
The best part is Melania would be up for deportation based on this standard since she worked in the US while ineligible to do so and failed to disclose it. Of course based on how Dumpster treats her, this may be his plan.
Click to expand...

She's over 47.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The new plan to fund The Wall is to use money from asset forfeiture(which in a lot of cases is just straight up stealing). They named the bill after El Chapo, a guy that escaped from prison by digging under a wall.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

MaizeRage said:
The new plan to fund The Wall is to use money from asset forfeiture(which in a lot of cases is just straight up stealing). They named the bill after El Chapo, a guy that escaped from prison by digging under a wall.
Click to expand...

I had to fact check this because it is so ridiculous...and well it is true it is being called that though because they want to use the money they seized from El Chapo to help fund it. ($14 billion)

1) That is just stupid!

2) There is 0% chance that actually happens. The red tape alone between the federal agencies will stall that out for YEARS!
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Speaking of Stupid

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn was warned by the Pentagon against accepting foreign payments following his retirement in 2014, according to new documents released Thursday by the House Oversight Committee.

The Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) inspector general launched an investigation into Flynn’s actions this month, according to another document released by committee Democrats.

In a 2014 letter to Flynn from the DIA — released in redacted form by the committee — the agency advised him that it is illegal for former military officers to accept payment from a foreign government without prior approval.

"Accordingly, if you are ever in a position where you would receive an emolument from a foreign government or from an entity that might be controlled by a foreign government, be sure to obtain advance approval from the Army prior to acceptance," Flynn was told.
The DIA told the committee in an April 7 letter that it did not locate any records that Flynn sought permission to receive money from a foreign source, nor it did it locate any other records related to Flynn’s receipt of money from a foreign source.
Click to expand...
 
Handyman said:
I had to fact check this because it is so ridiculous...and well it is true it is being called that though because they want to use the money they seized from El Chapo to help fund it. ($14 billion)

1) That is just stupid!

2) There is 0% chance that actually happens. The red tape alone between the federal agencies will stall that out for YEARS!
Click to expand...

Well, I guess a Mexican paying for the wall is pretty close to Mexico paying for the wall. Well played.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Handyman said:
I had to fact check this because it is so ridiculous...and well it is true it is being called that though because they want to use the money they seized from El Chapo to help fund it. ($14 billion)

1) That is just stupid!

2) There is 0% chance that actually happens. The red tape alone between the federal agencies will stall that out for YEARS!
Click to expand...

Having all civil forfeiture assets taken away from cops and given to a boondoggle is one way to have law enforcement vote Democratic for the first time in sixty years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top