Clarence Thomas v District Judges

[Yagoda]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What makes your comment particularly moronic is that the piece of the article I used includes a direct quote from the lawsuit. Or you so clueless as to claim that the BBC is making that up, too?

A direct quote from a brief by one side does not equal a statement of the law of the case. Sorry you dont know how the Courts work in the USA

[placeholder]

Just now, Yagoda said:

You want to brief the issue then? Lets go. You are the propenent of the proposition, show us the cases, like an American lawyer would. 

 

You do know what the issue is, right?

You questioned whether or not the evidence I cited from the BBC  was valid.  It is. I cited that evidence to refute theblether's claim that the judges ruling was just about employment issues. Stop trying to deflect. You've got nothing. 

[Yagoda]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You questioned whether or not the evidence I cited from the BBC  was valid.  It is. I cited that evidence to refute theblether's claim that the judges ruling was just about employment issues. Stop trying to deflect. You've got nothing. 

Guess that means you are too scared to debate US law with a real US citizen. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Guess that means you are too scared to debate US law with a real US citizen. 

The only way your claim to American citizenship makes sense, is if there's a positive correlation between US citizenship and ignorance of American laws and politics. But if you've got evidence to offer to support your position, go ahead and do so. You've got nothing.

[gargamon]

14 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Because he is looking after America 1st, returning freedom and accountability for corrupt govt entities? I really dont think AH had those goals, did he? 

AH had precisely those goals, but for Germans. Not very knowledgeable about history, are you?

[Yagoda]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The only way your claim to American citizenship makes sense, is if there's a positive correlation between US citizenship and ignorance of American laws and politics. But if you've got evidence to offer to support your position, go ahead and do so. You've got nothing.

IM not the proponent of any thing here, your post made a claim and you cant support it. Just so you know, the way it works would be:

 

Assertion: You make a claim

Facts: You support the claim

Law: that supports your claim.

 

You just puke out whatever lefty source google gives you first.  Try reading some law or at least, both briefs submitted by the parties.

 

You may want to study Myers vs US, 272 US 52 (1926). 

[Yagoda]

8 minutes ago, gargamon said:

AH had precisely those goals, but for Germans. Not very knowledgeable about history, are you?

His goals were Socialist, hence: National Socialism. Far more comparable to todays Democratic Party.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

IM not the proponent of any thing here, your post made a claim and you cant support it. Just so you know, the way it works would be:

 

Assertion: You make a claim

Facts: You support the claim

Law: that supports your claim.

 

You just puke out whatever lefty source google gives you first.  Try reading some law or at least, both briefs submitted by the parties.

 

You may want to study Myers vs US, 272 US 52 (1926). 

I wonder what garbage dump of a website you got that piece of case law from. Myers is about the right of the President to remove appointed officials. That is not the issue in the USAID case. Clearly, you don't have a clue what constitutes relevant case law.

[Yagoda]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I wonder what garbage dump of a website you got that piece of case law from. Myers is about the right of the President to remove appointed officials. That is not the issue in the USAID case. Clearly, you don't have a clue what constitutes relevant case law.

Wow you read fast, sarcasm intended. 

 

Guess you didnt Shepardize. Dont forget the footnotes.

 

 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Wow you read fast, sarcasm intended. 

 

Guess you didnt Shepardize. Dont forget the footnotes.

 

 

I'm going to devotemy time to reading a decision based on your assertion that it supports your case? Why should I trust you? If you have evidence from that decision to offer, offer it.

[Yagoda]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm going to devotemy time to reading a decision based on your assertion that it supports your case? Why should I trust you? If you have evidence from that decision to offer, offer it.

Translation: I read slow and dont know how to Shepardize.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Translation: I read slow and dont know how to Shepardize.

Another rightwing mindreading act. You've got nothing.

[Yagoda]

Just now, placeholder said:

Another rightwing mindreading act. You've got nothing.

Nothing is always far more than you have. Bet you think there is illegal alien birthright citizenship too?

[gamb00ler]

14 hours ago, theblether said:

 

Those convictions will.never survive an appeal. No chance. 

Given your lack of judicial judgement and education you must be angling for a spot on Trump's legal team.

[theblether]

^^nonsensical. Worthless. 

 

Anyway, X is boiling over. It hasn't occurred to the left that the White House wants this issue to go to SCOTUS. As one guy says here - district judges are not Kings. 

 

I have no problem with district court judges ruling against the executive and the issue being expedited to their circuit appeals court, who can then impose an injunction. 

 

Alternatively just do what Biden did, ignore the courts. You didn't hear the moronic left complain about that when the courts ruled against Biden re student debt. 

 

Goose, gander and all that. 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 2/10/2025 at 6:46 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

That, my friend, was a long expired misdemeanor. BBC should have done their homework instead of trotting out a silly democrat narrative. 

Truth is, nobody knows what his felony conviction was for. And due to DJT not knowing what crime he was being tried for, had no way to prepare a defence. Real kangaroo court justice to please simple minds and the liberal hivemind.

 

On 2/10/2025 at 6:51 PM, impulse said:

Those are misdemeanors, for which the statute of limitations had already expired. 

 

If you even count money that was paid to an attorney being recorded as a legal expense as a crime at all.

 

Try again.  Use small words so we simpletons can understand.

 

Incorrect. Falsifying business records may be a misdemeanor but falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony. And the statute of limitations for these offences had clearly not expired, otherwise he couldn't have been found guilty of them.

 

I'm not sure whether you were not paying attention when he was found guilty or didn't read any of the many articles that reported on the verdict being read out in court, but here's just one, as an example. 

 

Quote

"How say you to the first count of the indictment, charging Donald J. Trump with the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, guilty or not guilty?" the clerk asked.

 

"Guilty," the foreperson responded, repeating the answer 33 more times.

 

What was Trump convicted of?

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty-verdict/

 

Just to confirm that these were felony offences, see the extracts below from a legal article explaining the statute.

 

NY Penal Law § 170.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree

 

https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-170-10-falsifying-business-records-in-first-degree.html

 

Quote

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

[....]

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

 

[theblether]

Looks like I'm right again. To paraphrase - no judge has the right to insulate civil servants from political oversight. 

 

Where I'm right? Trump wants this battle to go to the Supreme Court. District judges - who are themselves polical appointees - should not have the power to overrule the executive. 

 

Absolutely absurd that a district judge who was nominated by a President, voted out of the committee and confirmed by the Senate thinks that other appointees who go through the same process are inferior to civil servants. 

 

 

[theblether]

Add to that - Judge Vargas has already narrowed the TRO to ensure that political appointees such as Bessent can access Treasury data. 

 

Vargas knows it was an absurd argument from the get go and when the TRO is challenged in court Trump can't lose. 

 

He'll either see D.O.G.E. carry out the work or he'll be served with an injunction which can be immediately appealed. Part of the appeal or allied to the appeal will be a challenge to the authority of district judges on national issues. 

[theblether]

So for all the ball-headed bickering on this thread by the demented left, you'll be enraged to see federal judges destroying nonsensical rulings that you celebrated. 

 

What a pity. 

[impulse]

3 hours ago, theblether said:

Where I'm right? Trump wants this battle to go to the Supreme Court. District judges - who are themselves polical appointees - should not have the power to overrule the executive. 

 

That's like a supervisor in the company mailroom dictating policy to the CEO.

 

I don't see how the judge can let the political appointees (like Bessent) see the Treasury data without allowing someone to query the data for him.  It's not as if he's a database guy who will spend hours at the keyboard slicing and dicing the data.  He's got to delegate that to someone who knows how. 

 

The whole Dem resistance thing is Alice in Wonderland.

 

[impulse]

9 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I'm not sure whether you were not paying attention when he was found guilty or didn't read any of the many articles that reported on the verdict being read out in court, but here's just one, as an example. 

 

We were paying attention.  Come back when you can explain the legal issues behind the judge's instructions to the jury related to the charges underlying the felonies.  You don't have to agree with the issues.  Just prove to us that you understand what they are.  Otherwise, you're just parroting the lefty MSM.

 

Edit:  And if you want bonus points, explain to us why the judge was right...

 

 

[stevenl]

56 minutes ago, impulse said:

That's like a supervisor in the company mailroom dictating policy to the CEO.

No, it's not.

[impulse]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

No, it's not.

 

Is too.

 

But thanks for your insightful contribution.

 

[theblether]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That's like a supervisor in the company mailroom dictating policy to the CEO.

 

I don't see how the judge can let the political appointees (like Bessent) see the Treasury data without allowing someone to query the data for him.  It's not as if he's a database guy who will spend hours at the keyboard slicing and dicing the data.  He's got to delegate that to someone who knows how. 

 

The whole Dem resistance thing is Alice in Wonderland.

 

 

The Judges ruling was effevtiely that Bessent couldn't sit next to a data analyst and view the data. Which is just utter stupidity. 

[gamb00ler]

On 2/10/2025 at 6:46 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

That, my friend, was a long expired misdemeanor. BBC should have done their homework instead of trotting out a silly democrat narrative. 

Truth is, nobody knows what his felony conviction was for. And due to DJT not knowing what crime he was being tried for, had no way to prepare a defence. Real kangaroo court justice to please simple minds and the liberal hivemind.

 

Please send your $$ to Trump immediately so he and his legal team can once again get shown to come up short on the scales of Justice.

[gamb00ler]

15 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

 

Incorrect. Falsifying business records may be a misdemeanor but falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony. And the statute of limitations for these offences had clearly not expired, otherwise he couldn't have been found guilty of them.

 

..... SNIP .....

 

https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/ny-penal-law-170-10-falsifying-business-records-in-first-degree.html

Innumerable presentation of the facts carries no weight with MAGAns.... save your breath/fingers.

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

We were paying attention.  Come back when you can explain the legal issues behind the judge's instructions to the jury related to the charges underlying the felonies.  You don't have to agree with the issues.  Just prove to us that you understand what they are.  Otherwise, you're just parroting the lefty MSM.

 

Edit:  And if you want bonus points, explain to us why the judge was right...

 

Try sticking to the issues under discussion which I responded to, not some other extraneous issues. 

 

@SunnyinBangrakasked what offences Trump was found guilty of, I answered by specifying what those offences were.

 

Then you (and he) said the offences were misdemeanors and the statute of limitations on them had expired. I provided evidence that the offences charged were in fact, class E felonies and pointed out that the statute of limitations had not expired.

 

I didn't make any claims about the issues underlying the charges, nor about the judge being right. My only interest and involvement in this was to respond to issues related to the nature of the charges.

 

Pointing out what offences Trump was found guilty of is neither left nor right-leaning, it's simply a question of being objectively accurate. 

[SunnyinBangrak]

10 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

Try sticking to the issues under discussion which I responded to, not some other extraneous issues. 

 

@SunnyinBangrakasked what offences Trump was found guilty of, I answered by specifying what those offences were.

 

Then you (and he) said the offences were misdemeanors and the statute of limitations on them had expired. I provided evidence that the offences charged were in fact, class E felonies and pointed out that the statute of limitations had not expired.

 

I didn't make any claims about the issues underlying the charges, nor about the judge being right. My only interest and involvement in this was to respond to issues related to the nature of the charges.

 

Pointing out what offences Trump was found guilty of is neither left nor right-leaning, it's simply a question of being objectively accurate. 

It was an expired misdemeanor. It was jacked up to a felony by being linked to an unknown and unproven crime. The jury got a multiple choice for whst the unknown and unproven crime was. Trump could not defend himself. Never happened in US legal history before.

Allowing a cults irrational hatred of their opponent to reach such delusional pitch they destroy democracy to try locking him up for an expired misdemeanor is disgusting. As is lying to try justifying it. Wise up.

[gamb00ler]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It was an expired misdemeanor. It was jacked up to a felony by being linked to an unknown and unproven crime. The jury got a multiple choice for whst the unknown and unproven crime was. Trump could not defend himself. Never happened in US legal history before.

Allowing a cults irrational hatred of their opponent to reach such delusional pitch they destroy democracy to try locking him up for an expired misdemeanor is disgusting. As is lying to try justifying it. Wise up.

All you ever provide is your ill-informed opinion.  How about something with some meat on the bones?

Where's the beef?  All you give out is bun only.

 

What charge on the indictment was for an unknown crime?  Details?

[illisdean]

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

All you ever provide is your ill-informed opinion.  How about something with some meat on the bones?

Where's the beef?  All you give out is bun only.

 

What charge on the indictment was for an unknown crime?  Details?

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

The "unknown crime" was not included in the original indictment and charging docs, and brought up only in opening statements at the start of trial in April.