CURRENT EVENTS - JANUARY 2026

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 796
  • Views: 15K
  • Politics 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Trial attorneys, is it a good thing when a judge essentially quotes Hanlon's Razor at you?
Click to expand...
The judge got ahead of himself with the show cause hearing, so this is a de-escalation -- with a nice backhanded grudging concession that he was perhaps wrong.

Before he could find contempt, he needed this specific ruling first -- that she is barred from representing herself.

But I don't think anyone in the universe thought Halligan was up to the job, so I don't think she has any reputation to lose.
 
Calheel said:
The 25th amendment talk is so stupid. If you can get Trump impeached, you can’t use the 25th, which is harder.
Click to expand...
Most of the time, yes. But in a specific situation like this one, it can be useful for two reasons:

1. Immediacy. Let's assume for a minute a Congress of good faith actors who want what's best for the country. They learn that the president has ordered a nuclear strike in one hour. He will be impeached and convicted for that . . . but by then we're all dead. The 25th, by contrast, lets the cabinet take out the president, stop the strike, and then let the process play out with less hurry. Still a lot of hurry, but not impulsive action hurry.

2. Psychology. Imagine being a member of Congress who has one foot in the Trump cult -- recognizing that Trump is a fucking maniac but also realizing in a cult you can't criticize dear leader. The 25th gives you an out. Impeachment says (whether or not it's intended): the president did something wrong and must be removed. The 25th says: the president did nothing wrong, but we think he might do something very wrong in the future.

The 25th is like moving grandma to the nursing home. Impeachment is like a court ordering her to the nursing home because she burned down the house. Very rough analogy.
 
superrific said:
Most of the time, yes. But in a specific situation like this one, it can be useful for two reasons:

1. Immediacy. Let's assume for a minute a Congress of good faith actors who want what's best for the country. They learn that the president has ordered a nuclear strike in one hour. He will be impeached and convicted for that . . . but by then we're all dead. The 25th, by contrast, lets the cabinet take out the president, stop the strike, and then let the process play out with less hurry. Still a lot of hurry, but not impulsive action hurry.

2. Psychology. Imagine being a member of Congress who has one foot in the Trump cult -- recognizing that Trump is a fucking maniac but also realizing in a cult you can't criticize dear leader. The 25th gives you an out. Impeachment says (whether or not it's intended): the president did something wrong and must be removed. The 25th says: the president did nothing wrong, but we think he might do something very wrong in the future.

The 25th is like moving grandma to the nursing home. Impeachment is like a court ordering her to the nursing home because she burned down the house. Very rough analogy.
Click to expand...
I'll grant you that the 25th has the immediacy advantage. But the idea that you could get Vance and half the cabinet to take Trump down for 90 days is fanciful. Even if he ordered a nuclear strike, those toadies would just let it happen. There is not a spine between all of them combined.

As for number 2, everyone knows Trump is ill and they don't care. It is feature, not a bug.
 
IMG_4020.jpeg


“
Two members of Elon Musk’s DOGE team working at the Social Security Administration were secretly in touch with an advocacy group seeking to “overturn election results in certain states,” and one signed an agreement that may have involved using Social Security data to match state voter rolls, the Justice Department revealed in newly disclosed court papers.

Elizabeth Shapiro, a top Justice Department official, said SSA referred both DOGE employees for potential violations of the Hatch Act, which bars government employees from using their official positions for political purposes.…”
 

Trump-appointed judge tears into Lindsey Halligan’s ‘vitriol’ and calls her leadership a ‘charade’​



“A federal judge on Tuesday ripped into Lindsey Halligan, President Donald Trump’s personal choice as the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, after she used unusually sharp language to push back on the judge’s questioning of her authority, saying the “unnecessary rhetoric” had “a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show.”

The assessment from US District Judge David Novak, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, is the latest dramatic development in a months-long legal saga surrounding Halligan, whose tenure was cut short after a judge determined in November that she was unlawfully serving in the role.…”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top