FBI moves to criminalize Habitat for Humanity, other groups

[gtyellowjacket]

Ok, sorry for accusing you of voting for trump.

But, why? Why try to justify any of the crazy from this administration?

It's kind of like the people that call someone a Hamas supporter if you say that Israel shouldn't bomb kids indiscriminately.

Just because I say that Trump likely isn't trying to shut down habitat for humanity because he disagrees with their mission of building houses for poor people or wants to disparage Jimmy Carter, that doesn't mean that I support all or even most of Trump's policies.

 

[farce©]

The “FBI wanted to freeze the assets of charities” because some political hack in the Trump administration told them to. That’s why the Trump Administration has been busy purging anyone who isn’t loyal and willing to follow illegal orders.

gt just can’t bring himself to admit the Trump Administration is every bit as nefarious as they seem to be, so he invents fantastic pretzel logic to justify the legality of their actions.

 

[StrangePackage]

The “FBI wanted to freeze the assets of charities” because some political hack in the Trump administration told them to. That’s why the Trump Administration has been busy purging anyone who isn’t loyal and willing to follow illegal orders.

gt just can’t bring himself to admit the Trump Administration is every bit as nefarious as they seem to be, so he invents fantastic pretzel logic to justify the legality of their actions.

Or... He's just a troll.

 

[farce©]

Or... He's just a troll.

 

[sringwal]

It's kind of like the people that call someone a Hamas supporter if you say that Israel shouldn't bomb kids indiscriminately.

Just because I say that Trump likely isn't trying to shut down habitat for humanity because he disagrees with their mission of building houses for poor people or wants to disparage Jimmy Carter, that doesn't mean that I support all or even most of Trump's policies.

To be fair, it isn't your position that you are getting lambasted for in this case; but, insted, the absurdity of the arguments that you are using to back your claims.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

To be fair, it isn't your position that you are getting lambasted for in this case; but, insted, the absurdity of the arguments that you are using to back your claims.

Why don't you characterize the arguments I am making and I'll tell you if I agree with them. If I don't and they aren't too far out there, I'll try to correct it to the argument that I am making.

 

[wmheel1287]

And yet it happened or possibly they started the investigation before the few weeks. I suppose either is possible.

If the instigation was not sufficient, I'm sure the courts will provide the charities a remedy. But at least some investigation occurred to even figure out who the charities were.

No "investigation" happened unless you consider a database cross reference to see who received grants tied to green energy an investigation. Even if you do consider that an investigation, there was no investigation that fraud occurred. The charities are being targeted for legally seeking and procuring grants offered by the previous administration. They are guilty of taking money offered by the US government for reasons that Donald Trump et al find objectionable. That is the ENTIRETY of investigation and probable cause here.

 

[superrific]

This isn't something we have to speculate about. They held a hearing on this yesterday. Here was Chutkan's question:

"“Can you proffer any evidence that [the grant] was illegal, or evidence of abuse or fraud or bribery – that any of that was improperly or unlawfully done, other than the fact that Mr Zeldin doesn’t like it?”

The answer was essentially no. None was proffered, that's for sure.

The DOJ's position is actually not that the cancellation was proper. Rather, it's that Judge Chutkan has no jurisdiction because it's really a federal contracts issue that has to be decided in the Court Of Federal Claims. Why does that matter? Because the organizations have to bring separate actions there and it will take a lot of time. There's no other reason.

So this should settle the matter. DOJ's official position -- which is the official position of the EPA -- is that there is no evidence linking any of these groups to fraud, abuse, whatever. It's pure harassment.

Judge demands ‘some kind of evidence’ from Trump’s EPA to halt climate grants

Federal judge Tanya Chutkan issues restraining order pending new filings over billions in axed research grants

www.theguardian.com

 

[superrific]

Why don't you characterize the arguments I am making and I'll tell you if I agree with them. If I don't and they aren't too far out there, I'll try to correct it to the argument that I am making.

You're just spouting off is what you're doing. The EPA has already admitted it has no evidence at all.

 

[BlueSteel]

Nobody is coming to save us. This is not a dream. Americans have pretty much always been as stupid (or intelligent) as they are now. What has changed is the level/complexity of propaganda, and the speed of which it is shared.

One might call it an "Information War."

 

[4thgenheel]

gt is a hell of an angler.