What specifically isn’t MAGA bullshit?Holder’s and Garland’s actions are not MAGA bullshit; and I was being facetious anyway. My views about investigating people and not crimes has never changed.
Your MAGA obsession is getting the best of you.
MAGA culture is a toxic stain on my party. Sorry for not liking MAGA, though not really sorry.
Seriously? Have you already forgotten Holder seizing phone records of reports deemed unfriendly to Obama? That’s just for openers.
Link it. I criticized the Obama administration for many things and that’s not ringing a bell. I can’t think of anything in the lawfare arena that comes close to what’s happening now. It’s unprecedented.Seriously? Have you already forgotten Holder seizing phone records of reports deemed unfriendly to Obama? That’s just for openers.
Seriously? Have you already forgotten Holder seizing phone records of reports deemed unfriendly to Obama? That’s just for openers.
I would like to learn more about that. Please provide a link.
Holder used the Espionage Act to obtain personal records of a Fox News reporter, among others. This was a very big deal. I’m surprised you don’t recall it.
Arrests? Prosecutions? Don’t remember this specifically. Link?Holder used the Espionage Act to obtain personal records of a Fox News reporter, among others. This was a very big deal. I’m surprised you don’t recall it.
Why do you couch everything in someone’s perceived political affiliation as if it lends credibility?
You started a thread about how the “right wing” WSJ had an article criticizing Trump. When I read the WSJ I think it’s about as right wing as Pravda.
Tillis is a lame duck with an axe to grind.
Try to discuss ideas more and political party less.
Maybe in hopes that MAGA would give it more credence since it is coming from their side of the political divide.
We all know anything a dem says is seen as automatically wrong so yes, mentioning political affiliation is warranted.
Holder used the Espionage Act to obtain personal records of a Fox News reporter, among others. This was a very big deal. I’m surprised you don’t recall it.
You mean when they were PROPERLY investigating jan 6? Although not sure what it would have to do with Obama. Maybe that is where people are confused?
And i believe it was just who people called and when, not content of the call.
True Americans would want to bring people to justice when they are part of an insurrection attempt.
Arrests? Prosecutions? Don’t remember this specifically. Link?Holder used the Espionage Act to obtain personal records of a Fox News reporter, among others. This was a very big deal. I’m surprised you don’t recall it.
How dare you question a statement from COH. People like you and me are why this forum is in such bad shape.
The weaponization of the DoJ is obvious and undeniable. What can be done about it?
Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump’s Lawyers - Above the Law
Is Joe Patrice one of the “legal experts” you relied on when arguing that Jack Smith’s D.C. Trump indictments were reasonable and legitimate applications of the KKK and Sarbanes-Oxley statutes?
No. There were a ton of them I listened to and read, many conservative as you used to be. Almost unanimously they thought both of Smith's cases were very strong. You're an extreme outlier on those cases. It would be great if you read Smith's report on the election interference case and critiqued that rather than sticking with that one worn out and irrelevant point.Is Joe Patrice one of the “legal experts” you relied on when arguing that Jack Smith’s D.C. Trump indictments were reasonable and legitimate applications of the KKK and Sarbanes-Oxley statutes?
justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf
Did you watch his testimony? The closed-door session was far better because it didn't include the MAGA Republicans attempting (poorly) to make political points.
The weaponization of the DoJ is obvious and undeniable. What can be done about it?
Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump’s Lawyers - Above the Law
Good article. That bimbo Halligan took a draft indictment that hadn't been presented to the full grand jury panel to a magistrate judge as a valid indictment. She no had prior prosecutorial experience and had no business presenting that case. I don't know if she was disciplined but discipline was warranted.
The bullshit, lies and lawfare started during Trump's first term. Actually, it started even before he was elected the first time. He started the "lock her up" chants on the campaign trail. Even after he won the presidency in 2016, he tried to get Sessions to prosecute Hillary, pissed off I guess that she won the popular vote. Then, after he lost in 2020, his lawyers were taken to task for lying and/or presenting bullshit arguments. Rudy Giuliani, for example, was practically laughed out of court in Pennsylvania. A judge there described Giuliani's arguments as "haphazardly stitched together" like "Frankenstein's Monster." The judge also said to Giuliani, "At bottom, you are asking this court to invalidate 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?" Of course, Rudy couldn't. On appeal, a three-judge panel of Republican-appointed federal judges responded in similarly strong language: "The alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold,” the opinion read. “The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so.”
You think it's bad now? Wait until after the midterms. I think Trump's revenge tour is actually relatively muted now because he knows too much lawfare could impact races in November. After November, he'll really ramp things up.
When a back-sliding democracy moves into autocracy, it's not like a switch gets thrown, lights start flashing, announcements are made, etc. Life goes on, seemingly unchanged for most. Then, over time, it's like, "What the fuck happened?" I don't know where we are on the continuum, but we've got a grifter-in-chief with a White House for sale and a Justice Department that does Trump's bidding and will never touch anyone who kisses his ass or lines his pockets. That's not the country any of us grew up in. So tired of this nonsense, and tired of people either turning a blind eye or being stupidly oblivious.
Why do you continue to bring that up? It was fully addressed by Smith in both his cases. I know you didn’t read his report or watch his testimony and until you do and specifically address parts of it, I’m done engaging with you on this. It’s a shame that I know far more about the cases than a self described conservative lawyer, but I undoubtedly do.FISCHER v. UNITED STATES