2 hours ago, seajae said:

Anyone that bases their statements on polls is putting their feet in their mouth, polls are designed by the polsters own requirements for a favourable result for their preferred party/outcome or have you forgotten  the same polls that showed trump wasnt going to win the election.  All the approval ratings I have read online are saying that trump is getting majority approval for what he is doing and that the dems are gettng their butts kicked, for me polls are  a laugh as none can be believed as they are based on a very small collection of people and not the whole country, makes a big difference when the ones being asked live in certain states/electorates to get a desired result and not a genuine one

You must do very little reading and be very selective about what you read. Care to share your sources? Or maybe you should just stop making things up:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

 

Even polls that usually give Trump positive numbers like Rasmussen and RMG have him negative. And as for issues:

 

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

This is how the pardon issue could work:

 

DOJ indicts a pardon holder. He moves to dismiss based on the pardon that HE must demonstrate exists. Appeals go from there.

 

Unfortunately that then limits the issue and outcome to that Pardon for that person. 

 

I would think/hope the case is a more broader issue regarding the validity of all Pardons under Biden's name that were provided and signed by Autopen - with no clear audit trail to prove the POTUS approved each and every one of them.  Something as important as a Pardon must be shown to be fully legal and compliant.

 

Lets assume Biden was badly mentally deranged in his last few months in Office. He had been embarrassingly dumped by the DNC and Harris had lost the election very badly. The whole place would have been a mess - rumour has it he did not even attend meetings.  The White House Staff and Others all knew Trump is coming for them, and so they decided to get Biden to provide Pardons for all their conspirators in the Jan 6 Committee - and for all the other 'Lawfare Activities' - and also for his Son Hunter, etc etc.  However, Biden is so mentally bad that he has no idea what is going on (or is telling them to go fish) and his Wife is telling them to 'go fish'. So they decide to use the POTUS Autopen - they get Biden/Jill to verbally agree to his Son getting a Pardon - and then also add all the other names to the list.

 

Now can they prove that happened - probably not - unless one person involved spills the beans so that they dont go to jail for 30-40 years for insurrection/treason.  But what they can do is show evidence that Biden was mentally damaged, not the least being that he was determined to be unfit to be questioned by a Special Counsel over those classified documents, and he was dropped as the DNC Candidate because he was mentally lost during the first debate, and so much more is available to show he was 'damaged'.  They can then use that to claim the White House Staff involved in issuing the Pardons, did not keep a strict audit trail of approval for each one. Plus they can claim the Autopen is not an acceptable form of signature to use for a Pardon - surely such an important legal document should be physically signed.  It was first done in 2011 by Obama to sign an urgent Bill when he was not in the White House. It was never used before 2011 to sign anything serious, and never sing for the signing of Presidential Pardons. It all stinks of atypical Dems bureaucratic under-handed corruption.  

 

"The President and the Autopen: It Is Unconstitutional for Someone or S" by Terry L. Turnipseed

https://surface.syr.edu/lawpub/83/

 

     

   

21 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

You're welcome.

This week's SCOTUS agenda:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub. L. No. 95-223, Tit. II, 91
Stat. 1626, authorizes the tariffs imposed by President
Trump pursuant to the national emergencies declared
or continued in Proclamation 10,886 and Executive
Orders 14,157, 14,193, 14,194, 14,195, and 14,257, as
amended.

 

2. If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the
statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative
authority to the President. 

I wonder if the Dems realise that what they are doing by using lawfare to block Trump's agenda does two main things.

1. Prove that they do not accept the election result and refuse to accept the People's decision.

2.  Yet again, force the GOP to respond in kind when the Dems next get a POTUS - unlikely anytime soon.

The Dems really think they are fully justified in using whatever means they can to block their political opponents when they are in power after being elected by the People. 

Elon Musk said it last week with Joe Rogan - The Dems last shut down the Govt for 35 days in Trump's first term to stop him building the Wall to stop illegals - because illegals get licences and social certificate in Blue States and they then vote Democrat. The Dems are now shutting the Govt down again, because Trump is cancelling 100s of $Billions in funding for the medical services provided to illegals mostly in the Blue States - because that will cause many illegals to leave.  Musk also said that unlike last time where the People did not know as much, this time around they know exactly why the Dems have shut down the Govt and that is why the blame is not sticking to Trump this time. 

25 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You must do very little reading and be very selective about what you read. Care to share your sources? Or maybe you should just stop making things up:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

 

Even polls that usually give Trump positive numbers like Rasmussen and RMG have him negative. And as for issues:

 

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

And Clinton is going to win the next election too 🤣

22 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I wonder if the Dems realise that what they are doing by using lawfare to block Trump's agenda does two main things.

1. Prove that they do not accept the election result and refuse to accept the People's decision

The prime litigants in the V.O.S. case are supported by the Koch and Uihlein ultra-conservative / libertarian interests.

 

AI quickie - Gemini

Both Charles Koch's network and Richard Uihlein have separately backed legal efforts challenging the President's authority to impose tariffs, with cases currently before the Supreme Court for arguments scheduled on November 5, 2025. 

15 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Unfortunately that then limits the issue and outcome to that Pardon for that person. 

Well that really the only way to do it. You could start a declaratory judgement action but EVERYONE would have to be named. Easier to start with the criminal process on one, so if you get a ruling that autopen pardons are not valid, based on the appropriate proof in that case, that ruling is then used on others. Pleas in exchange for testimony...the target isnt the poor schnooks who benitted but the corrupt ones who enabled it.

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I wonder if the Dems realise that what they are doing by using lawfare to block Trump's agenda does two main things.

1. Prove that they do not accept the election result and refuse to accept the People's decision.

2.  Yet again, force the GOP to respond in kind when the Dems next get a POTUS - unlikely anytime soon.

The Dems really think they are fully justified in using whatever means they can to block their political opponents when they are in power after being elected by the People. 

Elon Musk said it last week with Joe Rogan - The Dems last shut down the Govt for 35 days in Trump's first term to stop him building the Wall to stop illegals - because illegals get licences and social certificate in Blue States and they then vote Democrat. The Dems are now shutting the Govt down again, because Trump is cancelling 100s of $Billions in funding for the medical services provided to illegals mostly in the Blue States - because that will cause many illegals to leave.  Musk also said that unlike last time where the People did not know as much, this time around they know exactly why the Dems have shut down the Govt and that is why the blame is not sticking to Trump this time. 

A MAGA complaining about others allegedly refusing to accept people's election decision!  🤣🤣🤣

 

Trump Claims He ‘Won’ in 2020, a Day After Jack Smith Election Fraud Filing

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-claims-he-won-2020-election-jack-smith-filing-jd-vance-1963765

 

 

 

On 11/1/2025 at 5:18 PM, Rocky Sullivan said:

Can you name the Director of the FBI during that time?

Comey. A Republican who helped Trump winning in 2016 by disclosing the investigation about Clinton's emails! 🤣

9 hours ago, candide said:

Comey. A Republican who helped Trump winning in 2016 by disclosing the investigation about Clinton's emails! 🤣

Wasn’t he the one indicted by a Grand Jury ?

 

I don’t think it’s going to end well for him.

4 hours ago, Rocky Sullivan said:

Wasn’t he the one indicted by a Grand Jury ?

H, A, double-L, I, G, A, N spells HaLLigan
Proud of all the Irish blood that's in her
Divvil a man can say a word agin her

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

H, A, double-L, I, G, A, N spells HaLLigan
Proud of all the Irish blood that's in her
Divvil a man can say a word agin her

Best not to post intoxicated 

4 minutes ago, Rocky Sullivan said:

Best not to post intoxicated 

Best not post about a case when you don't know anything about it.

15 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The prime litigants in the V.O.S. case are supported by the Koch and Uihlein ultra-conservative / libertarian interests.

 

AI quickie - Gemini

Both Charles Koch's network and Richard Uihlein have separately backed legal efforts challenging the President's authority to impose tariffs, with cases currently before the Supreme Court for arguments scheduled on November 5, 2025. 

BTW from Trump Truth Social:

 

Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors. ...  If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!

 

From Reuters this morning headline:

 

Supreme Court cannot stop all of Trump's tariffs. Deal with it, officials say

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Best not post about a case when you don't know anything about it.

How do you know?

 

It still doesn’t justify you posting under the influence.

10 minutes ago, Rocky Sullivan said:

24 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Best not post about a case when you don't know anything about it.

How do you know?

because you asked: Wasn’t he the one indicted by a Grand Jury ?

 

Both Comey and James are trying to have Halligan disqualified as Prosecutor. The Govt. has responded. Here is a flowchart of their argument:

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

The "Halligan argument" is a legal challenge that asserts certain interim U.S. Attorneys were unlawfully appointed because they were not confirmed by the Senate and their appointments exceeded the statutory 120-day limit for temporary appointments. The argument does not claim that a prosecutor never needs Senate confirmation; rather, it contends that the specific circumstances of these appointments (specifically, back-to-back interim appointments to bypass the Senate confirmation process) violated federal law and the Constitution's Appointments Clause.

Troll posts & a reply removed 

 

@Rocky Sullivan

 

@jerrymahoney

Read it and weep Comey (authoritarianism) fans:

 

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-11/138.pdf.

 

Thats the Court filing.  Start spinning.

 

PS: Superseding indictment coming.

 

The source for the document is this in case you want to spin on Soloman

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/comey-expected-work-president-elect-clinton-knew-top-aide-was

(Re: Vindictive prosecution motions)

 

The Government's response brief(s) shall be due on Monday, November 3, 2025. Defendant's reply brief(s) shall be due on Monday, November 10, 2025. The Court will hold a hearing on these motion(s) on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 

56 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Read it and weep Comey (authoritarianism) fans:

 

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-11/138.pdf.

 

Thats the Court filing.  Start spinning.

 

PS: Superseding indictment coming.

 

The source for the document is this in case you want to spin on Soloman

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/comey-expected-work-president-elect-clinton-knew-top-aide-was

You think the fact that the government contests the Comey defense teams claims are somehow dispositive? It's clear that the government's claim that the indictments against Comey for his testimony to Senator Cruz are clearly false, The prosecution claiims that Comey lied about authorizing Daniel Richman to release information.  The transcripts of Comey's testimony before the Senate committee clearly show that Comey never testified about Daniel Richman. In fact, Senator Cruz asked him about Andrew McCabe, not Daniel Richman. The evidence for that is unambiguous. So all the ink they're spilling about Richman is irrelevant.

The second charge is that Comey lied about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Once again, the prosecution is lying. He was asked by Senator Cruz about the Clinton administration not the Clinton Foundation.

 

I wonder if the judges have the authority to open up the grand jury investigation to see how Halligan characterized the evidence. Rather than Comey being convicted, it seems more likely to me that she could be facing possible disbarment if it's shown that she misrepresented the evidence to the grand jury.

(Spellcheck suggested I change "Halligan" to "Gilligan". It makes a good point)

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I wonder if the judges have the authority to open up the grand jury investigation to see how Halligan characterized the evidence.

ORDERED that the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer's participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

ORDERED that the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer's participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts

Thanks. I don't what the chances are that those documents will ultimately be open to public inspection.

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You think the fact that the government contests the Comey defense teams claims are somehow dispositive? It's clear that the government's claim that the indictments against Comey for his testimony to Senator Cruz are clearly false, The prosecution claiims that Comey lied about authorizing Daniel Richman to release information.  The transcripts of Comey's testimony before the Senate committee clearly show that Comey never testified about Daniel Richman. In fact, Senator Cruz asked him about Andrew McCabe, not Daniel Richman. The evidence for that is unambiguous. So all the ink they're spilling about Richman is irrelevant.

The second charge is that Comey lied about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Once again, the prosecution is lying. He was asked by Senator Cruz about the Clinton administration not the Clinton Foundation.

 

I wonder if the judges have the authority to open up the grand jury investigation to see how Halligan characterized the evidence. Rather than Comey being convicted, it seems more likely to me that she could be facing possible disbarment if it's shown that she misrepresented the evidence to the grand jury.

(Spellcheck suggested I change "Halligan" to "Gilligan". It makes a good point)

You didnt read it. 

 

Spinning like a Dervish.

 

So much for Comeys motion. Next.

11 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Thanks. I don't what the chances are that those documents will ultimately be open to public inspection.

If they are leaked, its a felony.

Just now, Yagoda said:

You didnt read it. 

 

Spinning like a Dervish.

 

So much for Comeys motion. Next.

I read enough to know that they were devoting a lot of text to Richman.. And given that you offer nothing from the text of the document to counter what I've written, how is anyone to know that you've read it?  You got any specifics from the text to offer?

20 hours ago, candide said:

A MAGA complaining about others allegedly refusing to accept people's election decision!  🤣🤣🤣

 

Trump Claims He ‘Won’ in 2020, a Day After Jack Smith Election Fraud Filing

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-claims-he-won-2020-election-jack-smith-filing-jd-vance-1963765

 

 

 

What a patriotic sight. Not a Socialist banner anywhere, no skateboards, no fires, no deaths (well except for Ashley Babbit, Veteran, mother, say her name). 

 

History will judge that as the day that folks started to say "No".

 

Thats a parade of Winners.

Just now, Yagoda said:

What a patriotic sight. Not a Socialist banner anywhere, no skateboards, no fires, no deaths (well except for Ashley Babbit, Veteran, mother, say her name). 

 

History will judge that as the day that folks started to say "No".

 

Thats a parade of Winners.

Just some badly beaten police officers. And the patriotic cry of "Hang Mike Pence"

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I read enough to know that they were devoting a lot of text to Richman.. And given that you offer nothing from the text of the document to counter what I've written, how is anyone to know that you've read it?  You got any specifics from the text to offer?

Read enough. Got it. 

 

Better keep reading. They got your boy by the nutz. 

 

 

Just now, Yagoda said:

Read enough. Got it. 

 

Better keep reading. They got your boy by the nutz. 

 

 

You've done nothing to prove that you've read any of it. Should be easy for you to counter  what I've written with evidence from the text if you had read it. To borrow a phrase from Harrisfan, it looks like "you've got nothing"..

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You've done nothing to prove that you've read any of it. Should be easy for you to counter  what I've written with evidence from the text if you had read it. To borrow a phrase from Harrisfan, it looks like "you've got nothing"..

LOL, I dont need to "prove" anything. It speaks for itself. Whoever takes the time to read it and knows how US Federal Criminal Law works can make their own judgement. Any comment from you is meaningless. Take from that as you will, Socialist.

 

I will repeat. Comey is cooked. You can draw your own conclusion if you think for yourself.