Biden EPA gave a $20 million grant to his own "environmental justice" adviser WHILE SHE WAS STILL WORKING FOR HIM

[protectionist]

And you’ve yet to explain how they’re doing any of that.

Your only example is the kind of voluntary compliance that you can’t legislate. Want to try another time?

It's not a matter of "voluntary" It is just the opposite. Police are being REQUIRED to not comply with ICE. Nothing voluntary about it.

 

[Marener]

Its the bank's job to verify all collateral before approving the loan. Legally it's a very minor offense.

Whatever the bank does, it’s still the applicants job to be truthful on their loan application. If not, they’re committing fraud. You know fraud, right? It’s where you lie to get something. That’s Trump. A fraud.

Let's let the courts decide which case(s) are LAWFARE or are legit. The ones guilty of Lawfare are the real fascists.

Are you reversing your prior embrace of fascist lawfare? Good. Bondi isn’t going to do shit. There’s no case for her to take to court.

 

[Marener]

It's not a matter of "voluntary" It is just the opposite. Police are being REQUIRED to not comply with ICE. Nothing voluntary about it.

Complying with ICE is voluntary. They can’t force people to hold anyone without a court order.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Well, since they’re kicking them out of their jails, it’s hardly harboring. In fact, it’s the opposite. They’re not concealing anyone. They walk out the door on their own. It’s not protecting anyone either since by leaving their jail, ICE is perfectly capable of arresting them anytime they want.

Explain otherwise.

The hubris of "sanctuary" cities GETS AMERICANS KILLED YOU ******* RETARDED ASSHOLE.

 

[kyzr]

Whatever the bank does, it’s still the applicants job to be truthful on their loan application. If not, they’re committing fraud. You know fraud, right? It’s where you lie to get something. That’s Trump. A fraud.

Precedent says what the Law prescribes. The appeals courts will settle the penalty. Looks good for Trump so far

Donald Trump fraud ruling could be reversed, appeals court indicates

One judge said he found the $489 million case "troubling."

www.newsweek.com

Are you reversing your prior embrace of fascist lawfare? Good. Bondi isn’t going to do shit. There’s no case for her to take to court.

No, what I'm saying is that the appeals courts will rule on the merits of the "Lawfare" cases.
Who would win in court, Pam Bondi or Letitia James, or would both sides' lawfare cases lose.

 

[protectionist]

Well, since they’re kicking them out of their jails, it’s hardly harboring. In fact, it’s the opposite. They’re not concealing anyone. They walk out the door on their own. It’s not protecting anyone either since by leaving their jail, ICE is perfectly capable of arresting them anytime they want.

Explain otherwise.

The point of reference is not jails, it is LAWS - which give sanctuary to illegal aliens, in clear violation of US Code 8, Section 1324 AND >>>

Complying with ICE is voluntary. They can’t force people to hold anyone without a court order.

That isn't the issue MR Deflection. The issue is the laws the sanctuary creeps passed - with the clear goal of harboring, protecting, concealing, shielding illegal aliens from federal authorities. And they are all fully documented in front of the whole world.

You are going nowhere in this debate. You lost it 30 posts ago.

 

[Marener]

Precedent says what the Law prescribes. The appeals courts will settle the penalty. Looks good for Trump so far

No, the law says what the law prescribes. Your defense can't even address that Trump did lie and did commit fraud. All you're saying is that he shouldn't be accountable for it.

No, what I'm saying is that the appeals courts will rule on the merits of the "Lawfare" cases.
Who would win in court, Pam Bondi or Letitia James, or would both sides' lawfare cases lose.

Pam Bondi doesn't have a case to prosecute against anyone you mentioned. It's absolutely absurd to think that she does given you can't even argue the facts of any of the cases brought against Trump. All you are saying is that it shouldn't matter that he broke the law.

 

[Marener]

The point of reference is not jails, it is LAWS - which give sanctuary to illegal aliens, in clear violation of US Code 8, Section 1324 AND

The laws about not cooperating with ICE. Yes. Those are perfectly legal. No one, not even local governments, are required to comply with ICE.

That isn't the issue MR Deflection. The issue is the laws the sanctuary creeps passed - with the clear goal of harboring, protecting, concealing, shielding illegal aliens from federal authorities.

You are going nowhere in this debate. You lost it 30 posts ago.

Apparently it is the issue because you brought it up. So far, this is your only example of what these supposedly illegal laws say and it fails completely. What do these laws actually do?

 

[protectionist]

The laws about not cooperating with ICE. Yes. Those are perfectly legal. No one, not even local governments, are required to comply with ICE.

Apparently it is the issue because you brought it up. So far, this is your only example of what these supposedly illegal laws say and it fails completely. What do these laws actually do?

You think you can slide out of this by continually deflecting to the idea of governments being required to comply with ICE. But where the illegality comes in is not that.

It is requiring police to NOT COMPLY with ICE. Those are 2 different things, as any 1st year law student can easily see, as well as official judges.

Clear violation of US Code 8, Section 1324 AND OTHER LAWS.

• US Code 18 Section 1371,
• US Code 18, Section 1510,
• US Code 18, Section 2384

 

[kyzr]

No, the law says what the law prescribes. Your defense can't even address that Trump did lie and did commit fraud. All you're saying is that he shouldn't be accountable for it.

You can't accept that the appeals court will overturn Letitia's Lawfare. Running on "Getting Trump", and using Lawfare should be illegal, call it prosecutorial misconduct.

Pam Bondi doesn't have a case to prosecute against anyone you mentioned. It's absolutely absurd to think that she does given you can't even argue the facts of any of the cases brought against Trump. All you are saying is that it shouldn't matter that he broke the law.

If the appeals court says Trump didn't break the Law, then Bondi should be able to prosecute for "prosecutorial misconduct".

 

[Marener]

You think you can slide out of this by continually deflecting to the idea of governments being required to comply with ICE. But where the illegality comes in is not that.

It is requiring police to NOT COMPLY with ICE. Those are 2 different things, as any 1st year law student can easily see, as well as official judges.

Clear violation of US Code 8, Section 1324 AND OTHER LAWS.

• US Code 18 Section 1371,
• US Code 18, Section 1510,
• US Code 18, Section 2384

Your attempt to make a distinction is irrelevant. The local government has authority to direct their employees how they may and may not behave in their official capacity. If the local government says that they will not cooperate with ICE, they are perfectly entitled to.

 

[Nostra]

Explain how those laws shield, harbor or conceal illegal immigrants.

Any explanation would be over your head and as such a waste of time,

 

[Marener]

You can't accept that the appeals court will overturn Letitia's Lawfare. Running on "Getting Trump", and using Lawfare should be illegal, call it prosecutorial misconduct.

They might! I don't deny that. However, the facts of the case are not really in dispute. The question is whether Trump is allowed to get away with fraud or not. It has nothing to do with prosecutorial misconduct.

If the appeals court says Trump didn't break the Law, then Bondi should be able to prosecute for "prosecutorial misconduct".

That's absurd. You'd be implying that anyone who fails to achieve a conviction is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, but that's not what it means. There's been no allegations that prosecutors did anything illegal.

 

[martybegan]

The laws about not cooperating with ICE. Yes. Those are perfectly legal. No one, not even local governments, are required to comply with ICE.

Apparently it is the issue because you brought it up. So far, this is your only example of what these supposedly illegal laws say and it fails completely. What do these laws actually do?

They are required to defer to federal authority on federal issues.

Immigration is a federal issue.

 

[Marener]

They are required to defer to federal authority on federal issues.

Immigration is a federal issue.

They're not preventing federal authorities from doing anything.

They just don't have to help them.

 

[martybegan]

Your attempt to make a distinction is irrelevant. The local government has authority to direct their employees how they may and may not behave in their official capacity. If the local government says that they will not cooperate with ICE, they are perfectly entitled to.

And if they violate federal law in doing so, they can be prosecuted for violating federal law.

 

[martybegan]

They're not preventing federal authorities from doing anything.

They just don't have to help them.

Then they can do what they want to do without federal funding.

 

[Marener]

And if they violate federal law in doing so, they can be prosecuted for violating federal law.

Only if the federal laws are constitutional. The law cannot compel people to act on behalf of the federal government in the vast majority of circumstances. In the case of 8 USC 1324, they're not violating the law whatsoever.

 

[martybegan]

Only if the federal laws are constitutional. The law cannot compel people to act on behalf of the federal government in the vast majority of circumstances. In the case of 8 USC 1324, they're not violating the law whatsoever.

Then again, they can do without federal funding for law enforcement in general.

The precedent for that is well set. The Feds did that to force States to comply with the 21 year old drinking age or forfeit road funds or comply with Title IX or forfeit education funds.

 

[Marener]

Then they can do what they want to do without federal funding.

Good luck with that. Putting contingencies on federal funding after the fact is not constitutional. See the ACA and Medicaid expansion.