Agree Agree:  891
Likes Likes:  647
Page 316 of 316 FirstFirst ... 66216266291306312313314315316
Results 4,726 to 4,732 of 4732
  1. #4726

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Quote Originally Posted by GlennHarman View Post
    I think there are 2 scenarios for a Stone pardon:

    1. Less likely: Some of the less insane people in the current White House convince Trump to wait until after the November election because of fear that it might turn off some voters. Pardon occurs on November 4, 2020.
    2. More likely, maybe much more likely (all this is my opinion only): Trump ignores his advisors. Stone receives his pardon very late some Friday afternoon very soon, probably on a Friday that ends a particularly busy week from the standpoint of news or other election-related events like primaries or caucuses.

    Either way. I say definitely less than one year from now.

    Isn't Stone out while he appeals his sentence? I doubt Trump will do anything until the appeals process runs through its duration, since he is sure Stone will be exonerated (I know, I know).
    "And for my next fearless prediction..."

  2. #4727

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    You are right. So, for my "more likely" scenario, it should change to "...some Friday afternoon very soon after his sentence is upheld in the appeals court."

    I got what you meant by "he is sure Stone will be exonerated", but thinking about that for a moment: With the rate that things are going to Hades in a handbag, I wouldn't put it past Tiny to do something to make that a the judge who is to preside, or something. Still, I think Stone is unlikely to be exonerated, but incredibly likely to be pardoned if he is not. And I still say the pardon will easily happen within a year's time.


  3. #4728

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Why would Tiny wait to exonerate Stone? After everything he has done, he is at his highest approval rating. The Senate is his doormat. The Dems are ripping each other apart and giving him all the ammo for his campaign. And his base is solidly behind him.
    He has the Russians interfering on his favor in the election, Obama's economy is doing very well, and other than CNN and MSNBC people nobody cared about the recent round of pardons he issued.
    Why would he even pretend to wait? Just pardon him and hand him the re-election campaign. On November 5th nobody will even recall this event.
    Missing winter...

  4. #4729

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Because in his own mind, he is convinced that Stone was railroaded and wants the exoneration to prove that "normal" people wouldn't have found Stone guilty.
    "And for my next fearless prediction..."

  5. #4730

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Kyle Griffin
    When Trump national security adviser Robert O'Brien convenes meetings with NSC officials, he sometimes opens by distributing printouts of Trump's tweets on the subject at hand. Their job is to find ways of justifying, enacting or explaining Trump's policy.

    Michael McFaul @McFaul

    During my 5 years working in the Obama administration -- 3 at the NSC at 2 at the US Embassy in Moscow -- no one ever distributed printouts of Obama tweets to tell us what our policy was. #TimeHaveChanged.
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  6. #4731

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing special favors for the Trump administration
    The ordinary rules no longer apply when the Trump administration shows up in court.

    By Ian Millhiser Feb 22, 2020, 1:01pm EST

    The Supreme Court voted along ideological lines Friday evening to allow a Trump administration rule restricting low-income immigrants’ ability to enter the US to take full effect. All four of the Court’s Democratic appointees dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a sharply worded dissenting opinion accusing her Court of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration.

    “It is hard to say what is more troubling,” Sotomayor wrote. “That the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”

    The Court’s decision in Wolf v. Cook County is a significant development in and of itself because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants. Last August, the Trump administration announced a new rule governing who would be classified as a “public charge” — essentially someone reliant on government aid programs — and thus potentially unable to enter the United States, extend their visa, or obtain a green card. The new rule gives immigration officials leeway to turn away immigrants deemed “likely to be a public charge,” based on a wide range of factors including use of certain public benefits and English language skills.

    As much as 69 percent of the more than 5 million individuals who received a green card over the past five years have at least one negative factor against them under the new rule, and thus might have been denied immigration benefits had the new rule been in effect.

    Sotomayor’s dissent focuses less on the question of whether the Trump administration's public charge rule is legal, and more on what she describes as a “now-familiar pattern” in the administration’s interactions with the Supreme Court.

    At least two lower courts handed down orders blocking the new public charge rule — one of those decisions blocked the rule across the country, while the other blocked it only in Illinois. Last month, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 along familiar partisan lines to stay the lower court order blocking the rule on a nationwide basis. Friday’s order stays the decision blocking it in Illinois.

    Until recently, it was extraordinarily unusual for the government to seek such a stay from the justices while a case was still winding its way through lower courts. As Sotomayor warned in a dissenting opinion last September, “granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘extraordinary’ act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.”

    According to a recent paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, “in less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone)” — and Vladeck’s paper did not include the Trump administration's two applications in the public charge cases. By comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.”

    The Trump administration, moreover, has a high win rate when it seeks extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court. It’s achieved a partial or full victory in about 65 percent of the cases where it asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a lower court’s opinion.

    As Sotomayor explains in her Wolf opinion, it is very unusual for the Supreme Court to grant such relief so easily.

    Because the Supreme Court is the final word on nearly all questions of federal law, it typically likes to let novel legal issues percolate in the lower courts before handing down a final command. “Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument,” Sotomayor writes in her Wolf dissent. They also “upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay.”

    And in this Supreme Court, that party is almost always the Trump administration.

    There is a simple reason the justices ordinarily like to wait to decide novel legal questions. If a lower court gets a decision wrong, the same issue is likely to come before other judges who may reach the correct conclusion. As these decisions proliferate, they provide more and more guidance to other judges and, ultimately, to the justices themselves.

    When the justices take their time, in other words, they are able to benefit from the wisdom of many judges — and they are more likely to decide a case correctly. When the justices rush, by contrast, they short-circuit this entire process. And because the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the country, an error by the justices is much harder to correct than an error by a lower court.

    Sotomayor’s opinion is a warning that the Supreme Court’s Republican majority appears to care more about bailing out the Trump administration than it does careful deliberation that ensures the law is read properly. It’s also a warning that the Supreme Court appears to be bending the rules for Trump and Trump alone. As Sotomayor writes, “the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.”
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

  7. #4732

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand

    NEW: Julian Assange's lawyers plan to introduce evidence this week involving Ric Grenell. Evidence includes a Grenell ally's recorded conversations, which we obtained, suggesting access to "classified info" about Grenell's involvement in Assange’s arrest:

    Assange fight draws in Trump's new intel chief
    Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder plan to use newly obtained recordings and screenshots to argue that Assange's prosecution is political in nature.
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

    ― Frank Zappa

Page 316 of 316 FirstFirst ... 66216266291306312313314315316


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts