—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | Admin declares oopsies

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 478
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
HintonJamesHeel said:
I actually think the ignoring of the judicial order and the calling for a judges impeachment is more of an impeachable offense than almost anything he did in first term. Trump knows he can play this as the Democrats and judges want criminals but this is criminal behavior from his administration.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would want to try to analyze which of the events is "more" impeachable. We have some fine candidates:

1. Leveraging US foreign policy for personal gain.
2. Inciting an insurrection and actively trying to steal an election
3. Ignoring a court order.

I'm not sure #3 in itself is that big a deal if it was an isolated occurrence. It's scary because it's part of a sustained, multi-pronged attack on the rule of law.

I'd add to the list the pardons, and the DOGE lawlessness.
 
superrific said:
I'm not sure I would want to try to analyze which of the events is "more" impeachable. We have some fine candidates:

1. Leveraging US foreign policy for personal gain.
2. Inciting an insurrection and actively trying to steal an election
3. Ignoring a court order.

I'm not sure #3 in itself is that big a deal if it was an isolated occurrence. It's scary because it's part of a sustained, multi-pronged attack on the rule of law.

I'd add to the list the pardons, and the DOGE lawlessness.
Click to expand...
Ignoring a court order is criminal. It’s also clear that the third plane left after the administration was aware of the need for it not to take off.
 

China’s Xi Is Angered by Panama Port Deal That Trump Touted as a Win​

Beijing leader’s displeasure finds outlet in critical commentaries, but his tools to block sale by Hong Kong company are limited​


“Chinese leader Xi Jinping is angry about a Hong Kong company’s plan to sell Panama Canal ports to a U.S.-led group, in part because the company didn’t seek Beijing’s approval in advance, people familiar with the matter said.

The Xi leadership had originally planned to use the Panama port issue as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Trump administration, according to people close to Beijing’s decision-making, only to see the rug pulled out from under it.

President Trump, who in the first minutes of his administration called for the U.S. to reassert controlover the canal, celebrated the deal as a victory over Chinese interests in America’s backyard, turning Panama into a symbol of the U.S.-China battle for global influence.

Xi’s unhappiness suggests he, too, sees the canal that way and doesn’t like to be painted as the loser. His government republished a commentary last week describing the deal as a betrayal of the Chinese people. …”

 
nycfan said:

China’s Xi Is Angered by Panama Port Deal That Trump Touted as a Win​

Beijing leader’s displeasure finds outlet in critical commentaries, but his tools to block sale by Hong Kong company are limited​


“Chinese leader Xi Jinping is angry about a Hong Kong company’s plan to sell Panama Canal ports to a U.S.-led group, in part because the company didn’t seek Beijing’s approval in advance, people familiar with the matter said.

The Xi leadership had originally planned to use the Panama port issue as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Trump administration, according to people close to Beijing’s decision-making, only to see the rug pulled out from under it.

President Trump, who in the first minutes of his administration called for the U.S. to reassert controlover the canal, celebrated the deal as a victory over Chinese interests in America’s backyard, turning Panama into a symbol of the U.S.-China battle for global influence.

Xi’s unhappiness suggests he, too, sees the canal that way and doesn’t like to be painted as the loser. His government republished a commentary last week describing the deal as a betrayal of the Chinese people. …”

Click to expand...
“… The deal puts Xi in a tricky position. On one hand, Beijing has had to make clear its anger over the Hong Kong company’s move, which came without advance notice, to protect Xi’s strongman image, the people close to decision-making said. On the other, they said, Beijing is aware that any significant effort to torpedo the deal risks escalating tensions with the Trump administration. So far, China has been relatively restrained in its retaliation against Trump’s new tariffs on China, suggesting its desire to keep tensions under control. …”
 

Chinese Nationalists Praise Trump’s Cuts to Voice of America​

Beijing has long criticized the outlet, as well as Radio Free Asia, for highlighting human rights abuses in China.

www.nytimes.com

Chinese Nationalists Praise Trump’s Cuts to Voice of America

Beijing has long criticized the outlet, as well as Radio Free Asia, for highlighting human rights abuses in China.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“…
“Almost every malicious falsehood about China has VOA’s fingerprints all over it,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial on Monday, citing what it described as biased reports about Taiwan, unrest in Hong Kong and the coronavirus pandemic.

The news outlets and their ability to operate is in question after President Trump signed an executive order on Friday calling for the dismantling of the Agency for Global Media, the federal agency that oversees them. At Voice of America, hundreds of employees in Washington were informed that they were being put on paid leave. Radio Free Asia said the federal grants that funded it were terminated on Saturdaymorning. …”
 

How bogged down are Harris County courts? This Houston man was jailed for 18 years without a trial​



www.thedailybeast.com

Texas Man Held in Jail for 18 Years Without Trial

Edric Wilson was being held in Harris County Jail on murder charges in the death of the great-aunt of Lakewood Church Pastor Joel Osteen.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com

“… Edric Wilson was being held in Harris County Jail on murder charges in the death of the great-aunt of Lakewood Church Pastor Joel Osteen, in 2006, the Houston Chronicle reported.

The 47-year-old also faced aggravated assault charges in a separate case involving a different victim from the same year. However, over nearly two decades, both cases went through six district attorney’s administrations, three judges, and six count-appointed defense lawyers, eventually losing steam.

Then last year, Harris County prosecutors revisited the murder case. After concluding that a key piece of DNA evidence linking the woman to Wilson was weaker than initially thought, the prosecutors dismissed the murder charges against him. He pleaded guilty to the separate aggravated assault charge and was finally released on parole last month. …”
 
nycfan said:

How bogged down are Harris County courts? This Houston man was jailed for 18 years without a trial​



www.thedailybeast.com

Texas Man Held in Jail for 18 Years Without Trial

Edric Wilson was being held in Harris County Jail on murder charges in the death of the great-aunt of Lakewood Church Pastor Joel Osteen.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com

“… Edric Wilson was being held in Harris County Jail on murder charges in the death of the great-aunt of Lakewood Church Pastor Joel Osteen, in 2006, the Houston Chronicle reported.

The 47-year-old also faced aggravated assault charges in a separate case involving a different victim from the same year. However, over nearly two decades, both cases went through six district attorney’s administrations, three judges, and six count-appointed defense lawyers, eventually losing steam.

Then last year, Harris County prosecutors revisited the murder case. After concluding that a key piece of DNA evidence linking the woman to Wilson was weaker than initially thought, the prosecutors dismissed the murder charges against him. He pleaded guilty to the separate aggravated assault charge and was finally released on parole last month. …”
Click to expand...
“… Wilson is not alone in his predicament. In fact, he is one of the 230 people whom county staffers identified had been in jail for over 1000 days. …” [without trial??]
 
I tend to agree with this take about district judges and foreign policy.

I don't know if impeaching him is the answer, but why would he have any say in US foreign policy matters?

 
ZenMode said:
I tend to agree with this take about district judges and foreign policy.

I don't know if impeaching him is the answer, but why would he have any say in US foreign policy matters?

Click to expand...

Well, for one thing whether this constitutes a foreign policy matter is questionable. And all these folks were already detained by the U.S. so there was zero risk waiting two weeks to sort out the larger question in court.
 
ZenMode said:
I tend to agree with this take about district judges and foreign policy.

I don't know if impeaching him is the answer, but why would he have any say in US foreign policy matters?

Click to expand...

1. None of this stuff is foreign policy. That's what the administration wants you to believe. But it's not. Deportations are an entirely internal matter. Due process is an entirely internal matter. Are you suggesting that, if Trump says, "Russia will withdraw from Ukraine if we summarily execute Kamala Harris," the attempt to kill her is clearly not an issue of foreign policy.

2. Even if it was a foreign policy matter, requiring the executive to follow the constitution and statutory laws is actually well within the scope of the judiciary's power. In fact, in the early years of the Republic, a large chunk of the courts' dockets were admiralty cases, which very much touched on foreign affairs (see, e.g., barbary pirates).

For instance, if the president declared war on, say, Panama, should the court not get involved just because it's foreign affairs? Article I plainly gives the war declaration power to Congress and Congress alone.

3. If you find yourself agreeing with Stephen Miller, you should rethink that position. Not only because he's an odious human, but because he's nearly always wrong. For instance, foreign policy has traditionally been seen as an area that isn't much touched by "democracy." The idea that we don't have a democracy because judges are preventing the executive from trammeling the constitution is ludicrous.
 

Firing federal employees was swift. Unwinding the terminations is proving complicated​


“… On Monday, in compliance with Bredar's order, the 18 agencies filed status reports on their reinstatement efforts, which included contacting fired employees through their personal email addresses and phone numbers, and at one agency, through certified mail. Collectively, the agencies reported they had fired more than 24,000 probationary employees since Jan. 20.

All 18 agencies reported that they had canceled terminations for the vast majority of those fired. A majority of the agencies stated they had placed reinstated employees on paid administrative leave, with no other information on when or even whether they would resume work. …”
 
superrific said:
1. None of this stuff is foreign policy. That's what the administration wants you to believe. But it's not. Deportations are an entirely internal matter. Due process is an entirely internal matter. Are you suggesting that, if Trump says, "Russia will withdraw from Ukraine if we summarily execute Kamala Harris," the attempt to kill her is clearly not an issue of foreign policy.

2. Even if it was a foreign policy matter, requiring the executive to follow the constitution and statutory laws is actually well within the scope of the judiciary's power. In fact, in the early years of the Republic, a large chunk of the courts' dockets were admiralty cases, which very much touched on foreign affairs (see, e.g., barbary pirates).

For instance, if the president declared war on, say, Panama, should the court not get involved just because it's foreign affairs? Article I plainly gives the war declaration power to Congress and Congress alone.

3. If you find yourself agreeing with Stephen Miller, you should rethink that position. Not only because he's an odious human, but because he's nearly always wrong. For instance, foreign policy has traditionally been seen as an area that isn't much touched by "democracy." The idea that we don't have a democracy because judges are preventing the executive from trammeling the constitution is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Under normal situations, I'd agree that it's not a foreign policy issue, but they've "made" is a foreign policy issue, at least for some, according to Marco Rubio:

“has reasonable ground to believe that your presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
 

Vance to Lead G.O.P. Fund-Raising, an Apparent First for a Vice President​

Serving as the party’s finance chair heading into the 2026 midterm elections could help him position himself for the 2028 presidential primary race.

www.nytimes.com

Vance to Lead G.O.P. Fund-Raising, an Apparent First for a Vice President

Serving as the party’s finance chair heading into the 2026 midterm elections could help him position himself for the 2028 presidential primary race.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“…
At this early juncture, Mr. Vance is widely considered one of the strongest contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. His new fund-raising role will give him a great deal of face time with the sort of heavyweight Republican donors who could bankroll a national campaign.

Mr. Vance has had significant relationships with some conservative donors, particularly in Silicon Valley, including Peter Thiel, who was also at one point Mr. Vance’s employer. But he has not always been universally embraced by the party’s contributor class: Some G.O.P. donors have recoiled from some of his positionson foreign affairs and trade.

Still, Mr. Vance was a workhorse for Mr. Trumpon the fund-raising trail after he joined the national ticket, headlining many events in smaller cities that would not raise enough to be worth Mr. Trump’s time as the presidential nominee. …”
 
In Hartford Fire Ins. v California, (1993), the Supreme Court held that a court must apply the Sherman Act to actions by foreign companies in foreign countries if they are involved in a conspiracy to fix prices in the US. The Court realized that had foreign policy dimensions -- indeed, the defendants (joined perhaps by the US, I don't recall -- the suit in question was brought by states) argued that it violated principles of comity. The court said basically, eh we don't care; even if so, it doesn't matter.

So that's one clear precedent in which the Supreme Court said that courts can make decisions even when they touch on foreign policy. Just FYI. There are others. In fact, there was a whole Law Review article written about comity considerations in court -- maybe 10 years ago? I didn't read it because it was painful to read and I didn't have to read it for my job, but it's a useful reference.
 
ZenMode said:
Under normal situations, I'd agree that it's not a foreign policy issue, but they've "made" is a foreign policy issue, at least for some, according to Marco Rubio:

“has reasonable ground to believe that your presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
Click to expand...
Who has made it? The administration? The administration can't just declare something to be foreign policy because it feels like it. Again, is it a foreign policy issue if Russia demands that Trump execute Kamala Harris?

Notice the word "reasonable." In federal law, whenever an official is required to act reasonably, that means the official's decision is subject to judicial review. And that statute being cited is likely unconstitutional. It was the statute relied upon in the Japanese internment, which was approved by the disgraceful Korematsu case that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2017.
 
ZenMode said:
Under normal situations, I'd agree that it's not a foreign policy issue, but they've "made" is a foreign policy issue, at least for some, according to Marco Rubio:

“has reasonable ground to believe that your presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
Click to expand...
Reads like bullshit to get around due process laws.

What do you suppose would be the severe adverse impact to US foreign policy? I’m assuming Rubio did not specify such in his comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top