Impeachment
Man Deballed By Nancy Pelosi Very Sad He Now Got No Balls
Oh James Rosen. Have some self-respect.
November 15, 2019 05:25 PM
Nancy Pelosi thoroughly schooled a bootlicker for spewing a bunch of GOP talking points at a press conference, and where are we? Oh, here for it!
At yesterday's press conference, Sinclair journalist James Rosen, formerly of Fox News, incoherently spewed a bunch of Republican talking points at the speaker of the House, in the vague form of a question.
After spewing some "BLAH BLAH BLAH WHISTLEBLOWER TRUMP HAS RIGHTS" nonsense for a while, Rosen finally got to his question:
I wonder if you could explain to the American people why the legal rights of the whistle-blower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump, who should ordinarily enjoy a right to confront his accuser?
Rosen is parroting the GOP's latest moronic talking point, that the Sixth Amendment says Trump gets to put the whistleblower's life at risk. Of course, that's not at all what the Sixth Amendment does. I've already written about this -- TWICE! -- but just as a reminder, the Sixth Amendment very specifically applies to criminal trials, which impeachment is decidedly not. And even if this were a criminal trial, Trump would not have the right to confront the whistleblower unless his testimony was used as evidence in the criminal case. Let's learn more. Or relearn it. Unlike James Rosen.
<p>
If Trump wants to drop his <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/trump-insists-that-its-illegal-to-investigate-his-crimes-figures-that-everyone-will-just-go-along-with-it" target="_blank">case against Cy Vance</a> and concede that he <em>can</em> be criminally prosecuted, he's free to avail himself of all the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants. There are a lot of people who would be more than happy to make that happen!
</p><p>
But Pelosi doesn't need my help. She's got this.
</p><blockquote>
Well, let me just say this. I will say to you, Mr. Republican Talking Points, what I said to the president of the United States. When you talk about the whistleblower, you're coming into my wheelhouse. I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in the Congress, anybody who has ever served: 25 years on the committee as top Democrat, ex officio, as speaker and leader. <br>
<br>
I was there when we wrote the whistleblower laws. The whistleblower is there to speak truth to power and have protection for doing that, and any, any retribution or harm coming to a whistleblower undermines our ability to hear truth about power. So I will defend the rights of the whistleblower vehemently.
</blockquote><p>
Right-wing psychos have made it very clear why the whistleblower needs protection. They have screamed the names of civil servants who they suspect of being the whistleblower, and one only needs to peek at Mike Cernovich's mentions on Twitter to see people threatening to kill the whistleblower, whoever he is. These assholes have learned absolutely nothing after inciting a shooting at a pizza place with their insane conspiracy theories.
</p><p>
As Pelosi said:
</p><blockquote>
The president is not above the law. The president will be held accountable. And nobody should have the right to endanger whistleblowers. And that is the system that I will defend. And the American people ... understand that.
</blockquote><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media1.giphy.com/media/JO9iWihHBzgR2PEHSt/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca767b7f24166877bc68f19ac382fe7f0008137f915c&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA4NDczNC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5OTUxMTcxNn0.cETpIZIKn9AMUzvaDJzP-INiNi1BokvhxB8hoVm_e6c/img.gif?width=980" id="04146" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3bdecae03792f103efadb69019832c9c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
</p><p>
James Rosen may be acting like this because he, himself is a MAGA stooge, or he may simply be playing one on TV for his employer, Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Sinclair, as you may recall, is one of the biggest television groups in the country. It has stations all around the United States.<br>
</p><p>
Sinclair is also owned by Republican shill David D. Smith, son of fascist founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Sinclair is well-known for its <a href="https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2018/11/16/24616053/sinclair-owned-katu-aired-a-special-hosted-by-nazi-linked-trump-crony" target="_blank">pro-Nazi propaganda</a> and forcing anchors across the country to report news in a way that makes Trump look good. In 2016, Sinclair <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764" target="_blank">formally promised the Trump campaign</a> it would refuse to fact-check his lies in exchange for access.
</p><p>
Sinclair is bad. It's very bad. It's helping Fox News and the Republican Party brainwash millions of Americans by spewing propaganda, lies, and fear mongering. It tries to convince people that people of color and immigrants are dangerous and ignores white supremacist violence.
</p><p>
Check out this 2017 piece from John Oliver for more on the travesty that is Sinclair owning hundreds of local news stations around the country:<br>
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="560b51aa6b0e56824d5d0ee33b195335"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvtNyOzGogc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p>
So yeah, they're just great.
</p><h2>ANYWAY</h2><p>
All of that is to say that it's unsurprising to see this fuckery coming from the pieces of human garbage over at Sinclair.
</p><p>
After being thoroughly schooled, Rosen took to Twitter to whine about it. Because god forbid a powerful woman tell it like it is.<br>
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1195048806070542339" id="twitter-embed-1195048806070542339" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1195048806070542339&created_ts=1573756812.0&screen_name=JamesRosenTV&text=The+question+I+asked+%40SpeakerPelosi+Pelosi+as+a+reporter+for+%40WeAreSinclair+was+fair+and+respectful.+Her+reply+desc%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FZd4nsaIsRN&id=1195048806070542339&name=James+Rosen" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="FKW7AQ1573855528"></iframe>
</p><p>
Sorry James, but that wasn't a "tough question" so much as a stupid one. <br>
</p><p>
Nice try, though. Would you like a participation trophy?</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/8PBfNDoySmsRc49P4F/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76254efcb219bd3262c7dd871f302997c2da0711fd&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA4NDc1OC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDI2ODUzNn0.NsYdjCbCUWZeZok2Tyd6dEOAcyPzsmt7vnR-ZnEPfSQ/img.gif?width=980" id="20006" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ad88fb3bd0a2b41e68ee54380599bc90" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/nancy-pelosi-clapping-8PBfNDoySmsRc49P4F" target="_blank">Giphy</a>
</small>
</p>
<p>As to the irony of a Fox Newser/Sinclair Broadcasting guy bemoaning a political leader's lack of civility to journalists, there aren't enough pixels in the world to go over that one, and so this post is over, which means it is your OPEN THREAD. </p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Impeachment
Fed Society Founder Steve Calabresi Was A Dick But He Was Smart. The Daily Caller Ruined That Too
Jamie used to respect this guy, her old professor. His thoughts on 'Constitution' and 'impeachment' are YIKES.
November 12, 2019 03:45 PM
If we wrote about it every time the Daily Caller published bootlicking bullshit with no legal or factual basis, we wouldn't have time to do anything else. But this isn't just your typical Daily Caller drivel. It was "written" (allegedly) by none other than Steven Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society. And it is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
It's bad. It's really bad. It's bad even for 2019. It's bad even for a defense of Donald Trump. I might even go as far as to say it's bad even for the Daily Caller, and the fact that that's even a possibility should tell you how bad it really is.
<h2>A confession</h2><p>Most of the time, I absolutely delight in tearing apart dumb legal arguments made by Republican sycophants. But I have to be honest: This one is a little painful.</p><p>Steve Calabresi is a professor at my law school. He taught one of my favorite law school classes, a comparative constitutional law seminar. It was a small class, and because I've always had a lot of thoughts about conlaw (surprise, surprise), I talked a lot. Professor Calabresi and I frequently disagreed, but he always appreciated a good argument on the other side. He was obviously brilliant, even when I hated his positions. He always came off as intellectually honest and intellectually curious. Our class had excellent discussions of all types of complex constitutional issues.</p><p>I have no fucking idea what has happened to Professor Calabresi since I took his class in 2013, but since then, he has apparently gone off the deep end. I truly have no explanation. My best guess is that he has decided it's worth it to embrace the daily horror that is Donald Trump because he's getting exactly what he wants for the federal judiciary -- the Federalist Society has hand-picked almost all of the federal judges Trump has appointed, which now includes two Supreme Court justices and <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-takeover-courts-supreme-court-mconnell-federalist-society-menashi-909799/" target="_blank">25 percent of all federal appellate judges</a>.</p><p>Calabresi's Trump brownnosing isn't new. But somehow, it just keeps getting worse. And if this "article" isn't rock bottom, I shudder to imagine what rock bottom actually is.</p><p>When I first saw the title of this article -- "House Democrats Violate The 6th Amendment By Denying Trump A Public Trial" -- and that Professor Calabresi had written it, I stupidly assumed it would be an interesting piece about how the principles of the Sixth Amendment are so important that we should ensure they are followed not just during criminal trials, but during impeachment trials and civil trials, as well.</p><p>I should have known better than to make such an assumption.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/l1J9yApnGts8EXYoo/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76ab826f256df8bb1e405989cd59864c92b1b55780&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3NjU5MS9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTY5NzA0NH0.N3NtXMkH9hEL2sQAowrLouQr75CxLe1UowRGUJ96UOE/img.gif?width=980" id="8d216" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="15de0d8915f4fb242948ed33caa6a75d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/cbc-funny-comedy-l1J9yApnGts8EXYoo" target="_blank">Giphy</a>
</small>
</p><p><br></p><p>Now, there is no way Calabresi himself wrote this steaming pile of mastodon shit. This writing isn't just beneath a former Supreme Court clerk; it's beneath anyone who passed the eighth grade. Unless he spontaneously lost 80 IQ points huffing paint at a MAGA tailgate, Steve Calabresi did not write these words. I don't even want to say that it was probably written by some unpaid FedSoc 1L intern. It reads more like it was written by a not-terribly-bright high school student trying to parrot something he overheard while his parents were watching Fox News.<br></p><p>But, for whatever reason, Calabresi put his own name on this paper that would get a D in a high school civics course. So it seems that this tenured professor of constitutional law needs a little constitutionsplaining.</p><h2>Where to start?</h2><p>Everything about this is bad, The legal "arguments" are almost entirely based on fiction, the "facts" appear to have been pulled out of thin air, and typos and grammatical errors abound.</p><p>The first sentence sets the tone for the rest of the piece by leaving out a word.</p><blockquote>The nation is transfixed by the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump for purportedly using U.S. military aid to Ukraine to prompt that country to reopen a corruption into former Vice President Joe Biden's son.</blockquote><p>OH, Trump and Rudy just wanted to "reopen a corruption"! Totes normal and grammatically correct.</p><p>Then we get to the crux of the "argument":</p><blockquote>What no one is focusing on is the fact that the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives is violating the president's constitutional rights. The House majority is thus itself acting unconstitutionally and is seriously abusing its power.</blockquote><p>NO IT IS NOT.</p><p>Impeachment, believe it or not, is <em>right there </em>in the damn Constitution. The House shall impeach and the Senate shall convict the motherfucker who commits high crimes and misdemeanors. <em>See </em>U.S. Const. art. I, ยง 2, cl. 5; U.S. Const, art. I, ยง 2, cl. 5; U.S. Const. art I, ยง 3, cl. 6-7; U.S. Const. art. II, ยง 2; U.S. Const. art. II, ยง 4.</p><p>So what are these fools talking about?</p><blockquote>Impeachment is a legal proceeding, and just as criminal defendants have constitutional rights in criminal trials so too does Trump have constitutional rights, which House Democrats are denying him.</blockquote><p>That sentence, like the rest of this piece, is a trainwreck. And I'm still not quite getting what they're going for, here, so let's keep reading ...</p><blockquote>For example, the Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to "a speedy and public trial." House Democrats are trying Trump in secret and are denying him the right to a public proceeding.<br><br>The Sixth Amendment also guarantees criminal defendants the right to be "informed" of the charges against them. House Democrats are not informing Trump of the charges against him and are leaking salacious information to the press. This, too, violates Trumps rights under the federal Bill of Rights. <br><br>Moreover, the Sixth Amendment guarantees Trump the right "to confront the witnesses against him", which right House Democrats are denying to Trump. The president has a right under current Supreme Court case law to have a public face-to-face confrontation with the witnesses against and to testify in his own defense. House Democrats are denying the president that very basic constitutional right.</blockquote><p>The Sixth Amendment AGAIN? Didn't I <em>just </em>write this post?! (<a href="https://www.wonkette.com/the-sixth-amendment-for-dummies-mollie-hemingway-rand-paul" target="_self">Yes. Yes I did</a>.)</p><p>The Sixth Amendment seems to be the right wing's latest talking point. While I'm glad to see that Republicans are finally acknowledging the existence of the Sixth Amendment, they appear to have absolutely no idea what it actually says or does.</p><p>Since many of these right-wingers fancy themselves "textualists," let's go to the text!</p><p>The Sixth Amendment says:</p><blockquote><strong>In all criminal prosecutions</strong>, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.</blockquote><p>Those first four words are important -- the Sixth Amendment is, quite explicitly, about criminal prosecutions. And the Constitution is also quite explicit that impeachment is <em>not </em>a criminal prosecution.</p><p>But you know what? For a second, let's ignore the fact that the conlaw prof is completely wrong about what the Sixth Amendment says and does. EVEN IF IMPEACHMENT WERE A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THIS ISN'T WHEN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY.</p><p>Like actual criminal proceedings, impeachment has different stages. Criminal cases, like impeachments, tend to begin with a criminal investigation. An investigation is not a criminal prosecution, it's an investigation. <em>If </em>an investigation finds evidence of a crime and <em>if </em>you are charged with a crime, <em>then </em>you get all of the protections the Sixth Amendment affords. </p><p>While impeachment proceedings are ABSOLUTELY NOT criminal proceedings, the two are similar procedurally. But the House isn't the judge or jury in a criminal prosecution -- it's the grand jury. The Senate, which has the job of deciding whether to convict or acquit, is where something looking like a jury trial occurs.</p><p>As I wrote <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/the-sixth-amendment-for-dummies-mollie-hemingway-rand-paul" target="_blank">just a couple of days ago</a>:</p><blockquote>One more time, for the cheap seats in the back: Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. And even if impeachment were a criminal proceeding, this isn't the point in the proceeding where the Confrontation Clause would apply. If impeachment were a criminal proceeding, the House would be like a grand jury. It's the House's job to investigate and determine whether there's enough evidence to send the case over to the Senate for the trial. The Senate is where the actual impeachment trial occurs.<br><br>And, as always happens when political hacks try to distill a constitutional provision down to a talking point, they miss the point. The Confrontation Clause means criminal defendants have a right to confront the evidence against them. During the trial. In a criminal proceeding. And only when that evidence is actually considered by the court.</blockquote><p>But you know what? Let's consider what would happen if the Sixth Amendment applied during investigations. I'm all for more criminal justice reform! If we take Calabresi's (and Mollie Hemingway's and Rand Paul's) arguments at face value, it seems like they think the Sixth Amendment should apply during criminal investigations. That means that anyone who is being investigated by the police needs to be told by the police that they are being investigated, what they're being investigated for, who the witnesses are against them, and what the evidence is against them. They would also be entitled to a public defender at that point.</p><p>I mean, sure, if that's what you're going for. But, for some reason, I don't think it is.</p><blockquote>The fact of the matter is that even if the president abused his powers in urging the president of Ukraine to reopen the investigation in that country into illegal activity by the firm that employed Hunter Biden, House Democrats are abusing their power of impeachment by denying Trump his basic rights as a defendant in the case against him under the Sixth Amendment. </blockquote><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/CbeNFwDL6JOP6/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76bebaa035e0299d6f39f99bdde038c75073b5a03c&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3NjQ2MS9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjA3MDQ4N30.Ps8FvpYt8QXjEhtA_foQMzeiIFpZ4hOk5Kkf30idsiY/img.gif?width=980" id="3ade3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d62bc595e046be2a7079f7beceeeaff8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">lolwut?</small>
</p><p><br></p><blockquote>Impeaching a president and overturning the results of the 2016 presidential election is a really big deal.</blockquote><p>Totally. For sure, brah. Like, wow.</p><p>Yeah, there is just no way this was written by the same prof I had great discussions with about whether money bail is unconstitutional.</p><p>Also, the talking point about impeachment overturning an election is absurd. The whole point of impeachment is to prevent corruption and get rid of the motherfucker who commits high crimes and misdemeanors. Also, in the 2016 election, the electoral college overturned the will of the people, who preferred Hillary by around 3 million votes. Get bent.</p><blockquote>For House Democrats to conduct an impeachment investigation while violating multiple rights that Trump enjoys under the Sixth Amendment is a gross abuse of power, which is at least as serious as any abuses of power committed by Trump. The leaders of this unconstitutionally conducted and Kafkaesque "trial" should be expelled from the house for their unconstitutional behavior thus far, and the voters should "punish" House Democrats in the 2020 elections by electing a Republican House majority.</blockquote><p>Awww, the ghostwriter pulled out this thesaurus and found the word "Kafkaesque!" How cute! But, umm, someone needs to tell him that the House is not who tries an impeachment case. That's the Senate. </p><p>The capitalization (or lack thereof) of "House" is a bit confusing. I'm not sure if the writer is intending to say that congressmen should be expelled from their homes or removed from office.</p><p>Also, I don't think he actually knows how to use quotation marks.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/121em4mM0An4Pe/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76e1eee4af9051b2f140aa56480e5ef54c88060ba9&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3NjQ1MC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5MDcyODA1NH0.QQ3n6uEIVVBQTJq_rCjWsqnUFkRwPLzfdkb-fPZ5vx0/img.gif?width=980" id="a49cb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2f39b4e7ab90df20ddbd6a9fa220a90c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
</p><p>I would say the Daily Caller's editors must have been sleeping that day, but there's no way that site has actual editors, right?</p><blockquote>Violations of President Trump's Sixth Amendment rights by House Democrats are lawless, unconstitutional, and suggest that the whole impeachment matter should be dropped. If Democrats in the House believe in the sanctity of the Constitution they should abandon their unconstitutional impeachment inquiry immediately.</blockquote><p>I like how the proposed solution here is not to start following these "rules" that don't actually apply to impeachment, but to drop the impeachment inquiry immediately. </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/1tHzw9PZCB3gY/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76a67bd85699c8126a01a65bc5d2733b9fe44e0d31&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3NjQ4OC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzU5NzQzMH0.ss-SlQY83mvxl1owBLh2luOZ6dC1bLb7N_x9mK_xAlg/img.gif?width=980" id="6d321" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="966ce89b044adbb4410a000793095eb1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
</p><h2>Yikes, that was bad</h2><p>I am now dumber for having read that.</p><p>If a law student wrote this, Professor Calabresi should probably fire him. Immediately.</p><p>I also hope his uncle, Judge Guido Calabresi on Second Circuit Court of Appeals, has some words for him about this.</p><p>[<a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/08/calabresi-trump-public-trial/" target="_blank">before you click on this, I'd like to remind you that you're about to click on a link to the Daily Caller</a>]</p><p>Pay us. Pay us so we can pay Jamie for the damage to her brain and her feelings for having to read that drivel "by" a person she respected once. </p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump
Trump Lawyer Threatening CNN Can Eat Sh*t, Charles
Harder.
October 22, 2019 10:29 AM
Charles Harder is one of the worst people you've probably never heard of.
Harder fancies himself a lawyer to the stars. He has made a career of fighting against free speech, on behalf of terrible people. Harder is Peter Thiel's go-to thug and revels in being the guy who killed Gawker.
So now, he's representing the Trump 2020 campaign. Because of course he is.
On Friday, Harder sent a completely batshit diatribe to CNN's president, Jeff Zucker, who has recently become one of President Crazy's favorite targets. In the letter, Harder manages to check several important Trump boxes. Invoking conspiracy theories? Check. Ranting about the mainstream media? Check. Threatening a completely bogus lawsuit to get your way? Check. Accusing other people of doing exactly what you're doing? Check. Doing it based on secret tapes by James O'Keefe? OH COME ON.
<p>
<br>
</p>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="null" data-auto-height="true" data-rm-shortcode-id="FYU4RZ1571755502" frameborder="0" height="600" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/430922605/content?start_page=1&show_recommendations=true" width="100%">
</iframe>
<p>
<br>
</p>
<p rel="noopener noreferrer">
Ugh. There's a lot [of bullshit] to unpack, there.
</p>
<p>
Let's start with the first paragraph. "We write concerning your biased reporting practices relating to our clients" is nothing an attorney should EVER be writing. There is no tort of "biased reporting." In fact, "biased reporting" is protected by the First Amendment. This is doubly true when we're talking about the fucking President of the United States.
</p>
<p>
The crux of Harder's tirade is that CNN is VERY MEAN to Trump and journalists really need to be nice to our Dear Leader. The impetus of the letter was some heavily edited recordings of CNN employees released by far-right fraudster James O'Keefe at Project "Veritas."
<a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/trump-letter-cnn-project-veritas-first-amendment.html" target="_blank">The Project "Veritas" video</a> "involves a CNN contractor recording employees grumbling about various complaints about the network, none of which establish the plot O'Keefe set out to prove, and some of which suggest the opposite[.]"
</p>
<p>
Truth never being a big deal to the president, Trump has used the video for its intended purpose: spewing right-wing propaganda. Which is also, conveniently, the purpose of Harder's letter to Zucker, which blathers:
</p>
<blockquote>
Recently released video footage of individuals alleged to be your employees (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4) (the "Footage") indicates that your reporting relating to President Trump is contrary to your own mission and the aforementioned Code of Ethics. Your own employees appear to state that CNN is focused on trying to "takedown President Trump," driven by a "personal vendetta" that Mr. Zucker purportedly has against him, rather than reporting the news in an objective manner. In the Footage, your employees appear to state that CNN attempts to make its reporting appear neutral and unbiased, when in fact its reporting is far from neutral and highly biased against the President.
</blockquote>
<p>
This, Harder claims, is a violation of the <a href="https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf" target="_blank">Society for Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics</a>. <br>
</p>
<p>
For a second, let's ignore the facts that: (1) nothing coming from James O'Keefe can <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/wonket-sexclusive-totally-blameless-crime-stopper-james-okeefe-to-pay-100000-to-acorn-criminal" target="_self">remotely be considered trustworthy;</a> (2) Harder can point to zero false representations by CNN; (3) there's no law setting standards for journalists; (4) there can be no laws setting standards for journalists because we have a thing called the First Amendment; (5) this is all LOLSODUMB; and (6) AGAIN, WE HAVE A THING CALLED THE FIRST AMENDMENT. The document Harder cites to IN THIS LETTER SAYS NOT TO USE IT FOR LEGAL THINGS:
</p>
<blockquote>
The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at spj.org) that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.
</blockquote>
<p>
Hold on just a sec, my brain is about to implode.
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://media2.giphy.com/media/4Zki4FNMTtJCn85jLQ/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca766b44c01e7731c9f7aee14bb777157cfd47b81fc8&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAyMjM3OC85ODB4LmdpZiIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NzIyODY5MDB9.ueQaV7PTVG05tFQHqcC2tyxHTlt91mIGlkKQJLeN0ig/img.gif"></a><small></small><small></small>
</p>
<p>
Okay, cool.<br>
</p>
<p>
Eventually, we get to the main point of Harder's letter: presenting a crackpot Trumprant that will hopefully become a talking point on Fox News:<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
Never in the history of this country has a President been the subject of such a sustained barrage of unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks by so-called "mainstream" news, as the current situation.
</blockquote>
<p>
If that were written less coherently and contained some CAPS, it could almost be a tweet from President Fuckwad himself.
</p>
<p>
Next up: totally batshit legal claims!<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
Your actions are in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. ยง 1051et seq.), among other applicable laws, by constituting misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and others. Accordingly, my clients intend to file legal action against you, to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
</blockquote>
<p>
Where to start?
</p>
<p>
So, umm ... the Lanham Act is about trademarks and unfair business practices.
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://media2.giphy.com/media/kaq6GnxDlJaBq/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76f4d0fbd241c4d6607631d38f118af31be2d24e3b&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAyMjM4OS85ODB4LmdpZiIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NzE4NzY1NTZ9.bBLdqxx0T2GShNi0UaQKnaAgIUqWfr42OT2i1gbFPxU/img.gif"></a><small></small><small></small>
</p>
<p>
My best guess is that Harder is trying to claim that CNN is engaging in false advertising by calling itself unbiased? But even Harder must know how dumb his argument is, since he doesn't cite to any portion of the Lanham Act that CNN is violating. Nor can he point to a single case supporting his bullshit. Since, again, we have that thing called the First Amendment.<br>
</p>
<p>
Other lawyers were both disgusted and amused by Harder's fuckery.
</p>
<p>
<iframe src="https://www.wonkette.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1185231414473580544&created_ts=1571416164.0&screen_name=neal_katyal&text=Trump+is+threatening+to+sue+CNN.++If+the+legal+claims+in+his+letter+are+any+indication%2C+I+would+think+CNN+will+want%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FOWPipKmTBg&id=1185231414473580544&name=Neal+Katyal">
</iframe>
</p>
<p>
<iframe src="https://www.wonkette.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1185246047209230337&created_ts=1571419653.0&screen_name=BoutrousTed&text=This+is+an+absolutely+ridiculous+letter.++No+serious+lawyer+would+ever+think+of+sending+such+a+frivolous+letter+mak%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FptZQ4kzl35&id=1185246047209230337&name=Ted+Boutrous">
</iframe>
</p>
<p>
<iframe src="https://www.wonkette.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1185236623346356224&created_ts=1571417406.0&screen_name=gabrielmalor&text=CNN+should+keep+it+short+and+to+the+point.+%0A%0ADear+Mr.+Harder%2C+we+received+your+baseless+demand+for+payment+for+fals%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F23wxMNDFhW&id=1185236623346356224&name=Gabriel+Malor">
</iframe>
</p>
<p>
My favorite part of this letter comes at the end, when Harder demands CNN pay Trump money and also probably replace CNN's masthead with one personally chosen by the asshole-in-chief.<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
Please contact the undersigned to discuss an appropriate resolution of this matter, which would include a substantial payment of damages, as well as all other appropriate measures that are necessary to fully address the magnitude of the situation.
</blockquote>
<p>
OH MY GOD I SIMPLY CANNOT.
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://media1.giphy.com/media/YqE3jbSQQR6x9g19Kj/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76fb9c9b78fe3bf56a25e97a3797280e7a6c918158&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAyMjMwMi85ODB4LmdpZiIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NzIwNDk3OTB9.euTL6ENgYhBp0_6KuWXduk0nnmrdu2zaUUCMFPMU_sU/img.gif"></a><small></small><small></small>
</p>
<p>
This asshole is seriously saying that CNN needs to pay Trump money for not being nice enough to him. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THINKS THAT A MEDIA NETWORK SHOULD PAY HIM MONEY FOR NOT HAVING MORE FLATTERING COVERAGE. AND A LAWYER ACTUALLY SIGNED HIS NAME TO THIS LETTER.
</p>
<p>
All of this is just SO DUMB that you <em>know </em>Trump, personally, had a hand in it.
</p>
<p>
Let me just go check Twitter and --
</p>
<p>
Welp.
</p>
<p>
<iframe src="https://www.wonkette.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1183908206088728576&created_ts=1571100686.0&screen_name=realDonaldTrump&text=%E2%80%9CProject+Veritas-Obtained+Undercover+Videos+Highlight+Jeff+Zucker%E2%80%99s+%28%40CNN%29+Campaign+To+Destroy+Trump.+Videos+Reveal%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FyJSfxoGt7e&id=1183908206088728576&name=Donald+J.+Trump">
</iframe>
</p>
<h2>What did <a href="https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/cnn-dismisses-trump-legal-threat-charles-harder-1203375513/" target="_blank">CNN have to say</a> about all this?</h2>
<blockquote>
This is nothing more than a desperate PR stunt and doesn't merit a response.
</blockquote>
<p>
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/PXvCWUnmqVdks/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76283fadfe4cb2bd77c3841f6fa00f9da2361a615a&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAyMjkwOS85ODB4LmdpZiIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NzIwMTQxODR9.cmri_8utOQsKwuITiv3C3Jsc_1UlZpLJtvvCdatvQG0/img.gif"></a><small></small><small></small>
</p>
<p>
Well-played.<br>
</p>
<h2>This is the stupidest timeline.<br>
</h2>
<p>
So idk about y'all, but I personally can't wait to see Charles Harder go the way of Michael Cohen. Based on this letter, he already appears to be in on demanding illegal campaign contributions. Maybe they can be prison pen pals.
</p>
<p>
Oh, and since we're ranting about Charles Harder, we would be remiss if we didn't also include at least one "fuck you" for Peter Thiel.
</p>
<p>
<iframe src="https://www.wonkette.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1185236123896840194&created_ts=1571417287.0&screen_name=RMac18&text=Fun+fact%3A+%0A%0APeter+Thiel+used+to+fund+James+O%27Keefe%2C+whose+fact-devoid+videos+are+now+being+used+as+ammo+for+the+for%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FiQOJHU0gkT&id=1185236123896840194&name=Ryan+Mac+%F0%9F%99%83">
</iframe>
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://media1.giphy.com/media/xUPGcKbFxXKsmeEZpu/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76bc6599f76d2afca1c9c222e793f238c2e92e288b&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAyMzA1OS85ODB4LmdpZiIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NzIzMTM0MDZ9.ddXAo4D-AzX--xcFYOzyheyhLSNXoQaL80aaBVlK7XA/img.gif"></a><small></small><small></small>
</p>
<h2>TL;DR</h2>
<p>
<a href="https://media2.giphy.com/media/wNR8ZhO4fObRu/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca7607e74f36e018d12930a46ec907477d8cbb757875&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAyMjk3Ny85ODB4LmdpZiIsImV4cGlyZXNfYXQiOjE1NzIwMzI3Mjh9.lpOgAcwNzsdCSP1ntTi69AdqbSpyzi36oo_LxdUdbEU/img.gif"></a><small></small><small></small>
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://www.wonkette.com/you-cant-sue-the-aclu-for-telling-you-to-fuck-off-bob" target="_self">Eat shit</a>, Charles.
</p>
<p>
[<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/430922605/C-Harder-CNN-Re-Pres-Trump-Trump-Campaign-10-16-19" target="_blank">Harder Letter</a>]<br>
</p>
<p>
Wonkette is (still) ad-free (so far) but we're getting to the point we're going to need some soon if all y'all lovers don't FORK IT OVER. We mean money. Please do so, if you are at all able, below!
</p>
<p>
</p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form>
<p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump
Four Different Federal Courts Told Trump to Go F*ck Himself Yesterday
YAY!
October 12, 2019 04:00 PM
Yesterday, in federal courts from DC and New York to Texas and California, Trump got his ass handed to him.
That's right. In issues ranging from Trump's tax returns to screwing over immigrants and building his racist wall, federal judges around the country said "Fuck no" and put the kibosh on some of this fuckery. And since a Trump loss is basically always a win for humanity, let's put on our dancing shoes and celebrate these Nice Times!
<h2>DC Circuit: Turn over those tax returns, bitch!<br></h2><p>Once again, Trump has lost a battle over turning over his tax returns. Once again, we're all waiting to see how he tries to get out of it.</p><p>Trump was handed a big loss yesterday in <em><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/house-taxes.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump v. Mazars</a></em>, one of the roughly 5,286 cases Trump is currently litigating over his fundamental right to hide his apparently crime-riddled tax returns from the American people. A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit told him to turn his stinking tax returns over, already.</p><p>Trump filed <em>Trump v. Mazars </em>in response to a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to his accounting company. House Oversight has plenty of legal authority to issue this subpoena, but of course the unindicted-co-conspirator-in-chief can't let anyone see his tax retuns, so here we are.</p><p> The DC Circuit took the opportunity to remind Trump that he is not, in fact, actually above the law, holding:</p><blockquote>Contrary to the President's arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply.</blockquote><p>The opinion, penned by Judge David Tatel, reminded Trump that investigating presidential fuckery and protecting the American people from despots are actually important congressional functions. The court also definitely noted the pure absurdity of Trump's arguments, noting that even Nixon had apparently "tak[en] no issue with the general power of congressional committees to subpoena sitting Presidents[.]"</p><p>The court reminded Trump that checks and balances are actually good things that were intended by the Framers.</p><blockquote>Though our journey has been long, we find ourselves at the end of a familiar tale. A congressional committee, as committees have done repeatedly over the past two centuries, issued an investigative subpoena, and the target of that subpoena, questioning the committee's legislative purpose, has asked a court to invalidate it. The fact that the subpoena in this case seeks information that concerns the President of the United States adds a twist, but not a surprising one: disputes between Congress and the President are a recurring plot in our national story. And that is precisely what the Framers intended. As Justice Brandeis wrote, "the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." <em>Myers v. United States</em>, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). "The purpose," he explained, "was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."</blockquote><p>House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-upholds-order-for-house-to-subpoena-trump-taxes/" target="_blank">called the decision</a> a "resounding victory" for Congress and said:</p><blockquote>We must fulfill our stated legislative and oversight objectives and permit the American people to obtain answers about some of the deeply troubling questions regarding the President's adherence to Constitutional and statutory requirements to avoid conflicts of interest</blockquote><p>Trump has three options at this point: accept the loss and let Mazars hand over his tax returns, ask the full DC Circuit to rehear the case, or appeal to the Supreme Court. Since Trump's tax returns apparently identify him as the Lindbergh baby's kidnapper or something, we're going to go ahead and guess he opts with option b or c. Nonetheless, this is a huge step in the right direction.</p><h2>SDNY & ND Cal: Stop being evil and anti-American.</h2><p><em>New York v. Department of Homeland Security</em>, led by badass New York Attorney General Letitia James, challenges the Trump regime's disgusting attempt to deny green cards to immigrants receiving public assistance. On Friday, a federal judge sided with James -- and decency -- and blocked Trump and his cronies from denying permanent resident status to people because they've received public assistance.</p><p>In a <span></span><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PublicCharge-INJ.pdf" target="_blank">fiery opinion</a>, Southern District of New York Judge George Daniels issued a nationwide preliminary injunction and ripped the privileged sons of bitches at DHS a new one. Reminding DHS that welcoming the hungry and poor from other parts of the world used to be something Americans prided themselves on, Judge Daniels wrote</p><blockquote>It is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility. Immigrants have always come to this country seeking a better live for themselves and their posterity. With or without help, most succeed.</blockquote><p>Neither did Judge Daniels take kindly to the administration's argument that immigrants who don't speak English fluently are more likely to become wards of the state. Calling the government's argument baseless, Daniels reminded the executive branch that "The United States of America has no official language,"and "Many, if not most, immigrants who arrived at these shores did not speak English. It is simply offensive to contend that English proficiency is a valid predictor of self-sufficiency."</p><p>Judge Daniels wasn't the only federal judge to issue an order blocking this evil rule on Friday. San Francisco-based Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PublicChargeSF-INJ.pdf" target="_blank">also issued a preliminary injunction</a> blocking the rule on Friday. In <em>San Francisco v. USCIS</em>, Judge Hamilton similarly ruled against the proposed rule, though her order was limited to the districts that had joined California in its challenge -- Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Pennsylvania.</p><p>Both rulings are likely to be appealed and may end up in front of the Supreme Court before all is said and done. But at least for now, the rule blocking people who have fallen on hard times from getting green cards cannot be enforced.</p><h2>Western District of Texas: That's not how this works.</h2><p>Out in the Lone Star State, yet another federal judge ruled against Trump on Friday. In <em><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/border-wall.pdf" target="_blank">El Paso County v. Trump</a></em><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/border-wall.pdf"></a>, Senior District Judge David Briones ruled that Trump's <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/trump-just-making-sh-t-up-about-everything-now" target="_blank">ridiculous "national emergency" declaration</a> to build his racist wall on the southern border had been unlawful. </p><p>Noting that Congress explicitly refused to give Trump the $6 billion he wanted for his monument to racism along the southern border, Judge Briones found that Trump's attempt to divert over $6 billion from Department of Defense budget intended for military construction and drug programs violated the Consolidated Appropriations Act.</p><p><span></span>Judge Briones ordered the parties to submit additional briefing on the scope of the injunction. Stuart Gerson, a lead attorney for El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-against-trump-border-emergency-declaration/" target="_blank">called the decision</a> a "win" and said that the plaintiffs would push for a nationwide injunction against using the stolen funds.</p><h2>Are you sick and tired of all the winning yet?</h2><p>Despite appointing 25% of the federal bench himself, Trump is racking up record losses in the judiciary. Back in March, the <em>Washington Post</em> found that federal judges had ruled against the Trump regime at least 63 times -- and that number only continues to increase. As the<em> Post </em>noted, even if Trump ultimately prevails on some of these cases on appeal, Trump's losses in court "paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement far-reaching changes in policy without regard for long-standing rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior."</p><p>Trump and his lackies have made it clear since day one that we can't rely on their good faith. For now, we just have to hope that the other two branches of government are still strong and independent enough to protect us from an orange, narcissistic, wannabe tyrant.</p><p>Who knows what new messes tomorrow may bring, but yesterday was a good day for the rule of law. And in 2019, it's important to step back for a moment and celebrate that.</p><p>[ <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/house-taxes.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Mazars</a> / <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PublicCharge-INJ.pdf" target="_blank">NY v. DHS</a> / <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PublicChargeSF-INJ.pdf" target="_blank">San Francisco v. USCIS</a> / <em><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/border-wall.pdf" target="_blank">El Paso County v. Trump</a></em><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/border-wall.pdf" target="_blank"></a> ]</p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Newsletter
©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc
