The Swamp

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:19 am I seen a few people mention that DT maybe getting rid of Barr today or tomorrow and putting Crazy Jeannie Pirro in as AG.

Word is DT was set to replace Barr with Pirro if he was elected a second term. Which makes him losing better.

Can you imagine her as AG for 4 years??

As soon as Barr came out yesterday saying no evidence of fraud, I assumed he'd get fired today. So Barr, who was fairly respected, completely threw away his reputation and legacy to appease Trump, and for what? I know he was hell bent on implementing the Unitary Executive Theory, so he believed the AG should be the personal attorney for the President, but it seems like Barr loathes Trump and Trump asked him to do some truly astoundingly horrible things. Not to mention, Barr was previously the AG, so he has a clear understanding of, and I would hope, respect for the DOJ, so to argue shit like the DOJ should represent the President in personal matters like defamation suits related to him raping women then trying to destroy their reputations prior to his taking office is just deplorable. And after all Barr sacrificed to Trump, Trump will fire him and accuse him of being a Deep State pro-Biden hack, and Trump's base will send out death threats to Barr and his family. Once again, why would anyone ever work in Trump's administration?

Barr didn't throw anything away, he knows that all is forgiven the moment you leave.

Why can’t these fucks just accept he lost?!

Right? Stupid fucking fucks.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:43 am looks like Trump is going to be given PA even though he lost by 81k votes..

Patricia McCullough a judge in PA ruled that "mail-in-ballots" were unconstitutional. There is a hearing next week, but I am not sure they will be able to over turn her decision. Better hope Wisky and Arizona don't pull the same.

Its bad that the Republicans are trying to build in corporate indemnities into the stimulus package but also this is fine with me and I wish the left would just shut the fuck up and play team ball:

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:32 am

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:19 am I seen a few people mention that DT maybe getting rid of Barr today or tomorrow and putting Crazy Jeannie Pirro in as AG.

Word is DT was set to replace Barr with Pirro if he was elected a second term. Which makes him losing better.

Can you imagine her as AG for 4 years??

As soon as Barr came out yesterday saying no evidence of fraud, I assumed he'd get fired today. So Barr, who was fairly respected, completely threw away his reputation and legacy to appease Trump, and for what? I know he was hell bent on implementing the Unitary Executive Theory, so he believed the AG should be the personal attorney for the President, but it seems like Barr loathes Trump and Trump asked him to do some truly astoundingly horrible things. Not to mention, Barr was previously the AG, so he has a clear understanding of, and I would hope, respect for the DOJ, so to argue shit like the DOJ should represent the President in personal matters like defamation suits related to him raping women then trying to destroy their reputations prior to his taking office is just deplorable. And after all Barr sacrificed to Trump, Trump will fire him and accuse him of being a Deep State pro-Biden hack, and Trump's base will send out death threats to Barr and his family. Once again, why would anyone ever work in Trump's administration?

I think that's all he cares about. He already said he doesn't care about his legacy or what others think of him. All of his actions were for pushing his fucked up view of the executive office and he used Trump to do so much damage. He does not care about Trump, he's probably happy to fuck with Biden and Obama (hence the Durham thing), but he saw no advantage of playing along with Trump's election conspiracy scam (which probably means he figured out he had nothing to gain from it).

Everyone ok with this??

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:45 pm Everyone ok with this??

Before fuckhead Trump fired Comey for not looking the other way with super-fuckhead Flynn (and other things), FBI directors got one 10 year term (set by law in 1976).

Firing Wray, despite being his being appointed by Trump, would be a huge variance from the norm, and Biden is trying to get things back to semi-normal.

Hmm...wondering about that story about Trump pardoning his kids?

Man, Josh Allen's ugly.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:32 pm Hmm...wondering about that story about Trump pardoning his kids?

Pretty sure that is a civil suit, so he can't pardon a civil suit. Also, it's brought by the Washington DC AG, not a federal case, so again, Trump has no power or authority. I never realized DC had an AG, so that's interesting.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:45 pm Everyone ok with this??

Wray seems like a very by the book guy. I've read that he is a Conservative Republican, but that shouldn't matter for the role of FBI Director if the person has integrity. By all accounts, Wray has impeccable integrity, and he has not caved to pressure from Trump, so I'm good with it. Despite all the fear mongering and vilification of the "Deep State," it's actually a great and necessary component of the government, and I believe Wray is career FBI. In case it isn't commonly understood, "Deep State" is the ominous phrase for career government employees who are committed to doing their job without regard for who is in office. Everyone from your friendly mail carrier to pencil pushers and janitors. You need non-political career government workers to ensure the continuity of government when administrations change. And for higher up positions, you need people dedicated to their agency's mission and not serving the whims of the sitting President. Trump and his worshippers think anyone who fails to do Trump's bidding is evil, but it's actually quite the opposite.

How I feel about Trump and his kids.

Trump just lost his case in the Wisky Supreme Court. What is bothersome is the vote was 4-3. 3 Conservative judges were ok with going against what the lower court ruled to appease DT. This is why they want it to head to the SCOTUS.

That's not what it says, Nate. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court requires a majority of Justices to even HEAR the case. Three Democratic Justices and one Republican Justice basically told Trump that they didn't even want to waste their time with it.

The US Supreme Court is similar. They need four Justices to agree to even hear it.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:02 pm Trump just lost his case in the Wisky Supreme Court. What is bothersome is the vote was 4-3. 3 Conservative judges were ok with going against what the lower court ruled to appease DT. This is why they want it to head to the SCOTUS.

They were just voting on whether to hear the case, not the merits. If they voted to hear it, not likely they would have voted to overturn it. Big difference. As for the Federal Supreme Court, there aren't any cases yet that the Supreme Court would have the authority to hear. Trump completely doesn't understand that, hence his toddler meltdown on Maria Bartiromo's show, "I'm the President, so how can they say I don't have standing?" BTW, how batshit crazy does Maria come off? How can anyone see her and not realize she is out of her mind? Just like Jeannine Pirro. Doesn't even matter what words they are saying, just their expressions and tone are insane.

Finally having all these lawyers around here is paying off.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:16 pm"I'm the President, so how can they say I don't have standing?"

The fun part about Trump's standing meltdown is that the reason the plaintiffs in these lawsuits don't have standing is because Trump himself apparently hasn't been a party to any of the lawsuits. It's been Trump for President, Inc., and various voters and lawmakers.

I have to think that Trump himself would have standing to bring all or most of these lawsuits, since any wrong committed in the course of the election that harms him or helps his opponent would count as an "injury".

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:13 pm That's not what it says, Nate. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court requires a majority of Justices to even HEAR the case. Three Democratic Justices and one Republican Justice basically told Trump that they didn't even want to waste their time with it.

The US Supreme Court is similar. They need four Justices to agree to even hear it.

Doesn’t matter what they were doing. The idea they were 1 vote from even ruling a case that was thrown out by the lower court is troublesome.

Sure. Stay with the Chicken Little routine, since your predictions so far have been a cavalcade of accuracy.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:08 pm

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:13 pm That's not what it says, Nate. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court requires a majority of Justices to even HEAR the case. Three Democratic Justices and one Republican Justice basically told Trump that they didn't even want to waste their time with it.

The US Supreme Court is similar. They need four Justices to agree to even hear it.

Doesn’t matter what they were doing. The idea they were 1 vote from even ruling a case that was thrown out by the lower court is troublesome.

The equivalent of a 57-43 landslide.

A_B wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:20 pm Finally having all these lawyers around here is paying off.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:08 pm

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:13 pm That's not what it says, Nate. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court requires a majority of Justices to even HEAR the case. Three Democratic Justices and one Republican Justice basically told Trump that they didn't even want to waste their time with it.

The US Supreme Court is similar. They need four Justices to agree to even hear it.

Doesn’t matter what they were doing. The idea they were 1 vote from even ruling a case that was thrown out by the lower court is troublesome.

Completely disagree. Often, an appellate court will vote to hear a case in order to rule on the issue against the party bringing the appeal, to set precedence or clarify contradictory . Appeals courts can also agree to hear an aspect of a case, then remand the case back to the trial court. If the WI S.Ct. voted to hear the case, it would have meant those judges were going to vote to overturn the results, it just means that they felt some aspect of the case warranted additional argument or needed a higher court to clarify a discrepancy between lower court rulings on different cases involving the same issue.

Well Justice Alito is now getting involved in the PA case filed by republican state rep Mike Kelly.

I don’t trust any Conservative in the SCOTUS and will not be relaxed until Jan 20, 2021.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:52 am Well Justice Alito is now getting involved in the PA case filed by republican state rep Mike Kelly.

I don’t trust any Conservative in the SCOTUS and will not be relaxed until Jan 20, 2021.

And you still consider yourself a Republican?

I tried finding news of Alito stepping in, and it's really difficult to find anything from a source I've heard of before. But, this was in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday:

Just hours after the congressman filed that appeal, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. issued a schedule for the case that appeared to foreclose any chance of the justices weighing in before the Electoral College vote had been finalized.

Alito, who handles emergency matters arising out of Pennsylvania for the court, gave state officials until Dec. 9 to file their reply — one day after the federal deadline for locking the state’s slate of electors in place.

Not exactly the power move of a Justice looking to steal the election for Trump. And if there was anything to this story, I'd think every outlet would be all over the story, yet, nothing...

Can we make predictions about Trump's "Victory" Rally tonight in Georgia? Mine is that he speaks for over an hour, barely mentions the 2 Senate candidates, and it is nothing but conspiracy theories and ass-hattery.

On a Shit-Show scale of 1-10, I'm expecting a 87.

Well, looks like it will soon be out of the hands of the lawyers and judges...

Imagine believing in God and then believing that the person described in the Bible would actually want Donald Trump to be a leader of people.

brian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:32 pm Imagine believing in God and then believing that the person described in the Bible would actually want Donald Trump to be a leader of people.

Have you read the Bible? God is pretty horrific and vengeful.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:39 pm

brian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:32 pm Imagine believing in God and then believing that the person described in the Bible would actually want Donald Trump to be a leader of people.

Have you read the Bible? God is pretty horrific and vengeful.

Some of us read past the first few books.

A_B wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:47 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:39 pm

brian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:32 pm Imagine believing in God and then believing that the person described in the Bible would actually want Donald Trump to be a leader of people.

Have you read the Bible? God is pretty horrific and vengeful.

Some of us read past the first few books.

Lol.

I would say I cannot believe that fucker is still at it, but he's still at it - even as of this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

tennbengal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:54 pm I would say I cannot believe that fucker is still at it, but he's still at it - even as of this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

What I don't get....306 - 16 > 270.

Even if Kemp did do that...Trump still loses the Electoral College.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 4:04 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:54 pm I would say I cannot believe that fucker is still at it, but he's still at it - even as of this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

What I don't get....306 - 16 > 270.

Even if Kemp did do that...Trump still loses the Electoral College.

It's about establishing precedent with Trumpers to go at the Republican governors, or you know, kidnap Democrat Governors, etc..

A_B wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:47 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:39 pm

brian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:32 pm Imagine believing in God and then believing that the person described in the Bible would actually want Donald Trump to be a leader of people.

Have you read the Bible? God is pretty horrific and vengeful.

Some of us read past the first few books.

Well played, sir.

This feels like karma and what not...

So the deadline for this was originally set for 4PM Wednesday, which would have been past Safe Harbor day, but now the SCOTUS changed it to before.



Christ

Unnamed Pentagon officials blast use of anonymous sources

Senior defense officials on Saturday declined to go on the record yet sharply criticized the use of anonymous sources in reports that the Pentagon was slow-rolling Biden-Harris transition efforts.

Anonymous sources are the worst!

Michigan SOS Benson and her 4 year old son had armed people surround their house tonight.

Am not sure what thread this should go in, but if you have time for a long read - read this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... pt/617309/