6 Dem congressmen/woman call for INSURRECTION against the trump administration

[Darkwind]

This isn't you then?

So, now you want to play language games.

Show me where in my entire history on this forum, that I have claimed to have the power to charge someone?

Pam Bondi has that power. Many in the DOJ have been give statutory authority to charge someone.

I state an opinion.

So, if you are going to play games, then have a nice evening.

 

[berg80]

Ok, I’ll meet libs halfway

No hanging just 20 years in prison

Next issue

What happens to trump if the killings are deemed to be illegal? Conviction in abstentia in the Hague? Impeachment? Resignation?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Daily kos?

DAILY KOS!

The curated choice of discerning moderates everywhere.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Trump has never given an unlawful order. I laugh at your idea of fascism.

.

That's the deal. They throw that word like feces at the wall and do not know what it means.

.

 

[Mac1958]

You can tell from this thread, chock full of ad hominem responses, that it doesn't matter to them.

That's been my question from the beginning: How many of them don't understand what they're enabling, and how many of them know EXACTLY what they're enabling and WANT it?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

No you ******* Commie. Illegal laws are illegal and not be obeyed.

You calling someone a "******* Commie" is like Joe Biden calling someone a "decrepit pedophile".

ALLEGEDLY.

 

[Blaster]

What happens to trump if the killings are deemed to be illegal? Conviction in abstentia in the Hague? Impeachment? Resignation?

What killings?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Its taken him months to get there. Like Hitler.

WHOAH.

Comparing Trump to Hitler????

Dude.

You just CROSSED A LINE.

This is unprecedented.

And now we can never, ever go back.

Ever.

 

[buttercup]

DAILY KOS!

The curated choice of discerning moderates everywhere.

How about "Truth Social" ?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715

 

[Leo123]

No you ******* Commie. Illegal laws are illegal and not be obeyed.

What exactly is illegal in deporting illegal aliens?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

How about "Truth Social" ?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715

I didn't claim the post was false, dingus.

Just the take on it.

 

[Blaster]

How about "Truth Social" ?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715

How about it?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

The oath the military takes is to the Constitution first, I'm pretty sure not to the commander in chief altough they do specify to obey his orders.

So if the commander in chief orders something that is unlawful should they obey?

What has he ordered that is unlawful?

 

[berg80]

That's been my question from the beginning: How many of them don't understand what they're enabling, and how many of them know EXACTLY what they're enabling and WANT it?

Or how many are in denial of what they have enabled?

 

[Mac1958]

What’s more malicious than this?

View attachment 1186050

There's nothing wrong with it if they like it.

A literal death threat, on Americans who broke no laws, by a current American President.

There is no bottom now.

 

[Mac1958]

Or how many are in denial of what they have enabled?

Yeah, that's another possibility.

 

[forkup]

So, now you want to play language games.

Show me where in my entire history on this forum, that I have claimed to have the power to charge someone?

Pam Bondi has that power. Many in the DOJ have been give statutory authority to charge someone.

I state an opinion.

So, if you are going to play games, then have a nice evening.

This is what I quoted from you. In post 70

I have not charged them with sedition nor treason. I HAVE said that they walked right up to the line with their language manipulation

So, you changed the context by claiming that what you meant by "charged" was putting out an indictment or something. Something that doesn't make sense in context. Why would I even assume you have that power? And simply ignore the second sentence.

I HAVE said that they walked right up to the line with their language manipulation.

Just so you could claim that you didn't say this to claim that this is the crime you think they committed.

That is sedition at the very least.

So one of us is playing "language games" it isn't me.

 

[buttercup]

There's nothing wrong with it if they like it.

A literal death threat, on Americans who broke no laws, by a current American President.

There is no bottom now.

 

[forkup]

What has he ordered that is unlawful?

You first. Does the military have the right to disobey unlawful orders?

 

[berg80]

What exactly is illegal in deporting illegal aliens?

Look up Abrego Garcia.

2-d. Return from El Salvador achieved, but “no appetite” to restore “status quo ante,” with “defiance and foot-dragging” warranting further relief​

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

This case involves the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

Despite Garcia’s Jun. 6 return to the United States, during a Jul. 7 hearing, Judge Xinis refused to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case, pressed DOJ about whether the indictment and return were used to facilitate compliance with her injunction, and highlighted unresolved production gaps (including the missing arrest warrant) and incomplete compliance with her orders. In a Jul. 23 order granting emergency relief to require Garcia’s return to Maryland pending further proceedings, she noted that, over the prior three months, the government had “disregarded court orders,” displayed “defiance and foot-dragging,” and a “persistent lack of transparency,” warranting further injunctive relief. She found that, despite the first part of her April 4 preliminary injunction (to facilitate Garcia’s release from El Salvador) having been met, the government had shown “no appetite” to fulfill the second part of the injunction—“to restore Abrego Garcia to the status quo ante.” Garcia remained in U.S. Marshals’ custody in Tennessee with an ICE detainer, and the court “shared Plaintiffs’ ongoing concern” that, “absent meaningful safeguards,” he could be removed again “without having restored him to the status quo ante.” Judge Xinis maintained that she would “not hesitate to revisit” broader relief “if Defendants fail to comply with this Order or otherwise attempt to remove Abrego Garcia … without due process.”

Judge Stephanie Thacker (Obama appointee), Judge Robert King (Clinton appointee), Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (Reagan appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1404 (4th Cir.)

Appeal from the district court’s Apr. 10 order directing the government to “take all available steps to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and to report on steps taken.

On Apr. 17, the Fourth Circuit (Wilkinson, joined by King & Thacker) denied the government’s emergency stay and mandamus, stressing that “‘facilitate’ is an active verb” and that the word’s “plain and active meaning … cannot be diluted” as the government urged. Judge Wilkinson wrote that “‘[f]acilitation’ does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation … in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns.” It warned that “if today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens … ?” Emphasizing comity, the Judge Wilkinson added:

“The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.” (emphasis added).

Recalling President Eisenhower’s example—his insistence that the Executive must support and ensure enforcement of federal court decisions—Judge Wilkinson quoted: “unless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation (4th edition)

Definitive, most comprehensive study of court cases involving Trump administration and the basis for courts no longer giving a "presumption of regularity."

www.justsecurity.org