|
BoscoX -> RE: Trump wants to imprison reporters who publish leaks (5/17/2017 5:26:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
They've gone after Limbaugh, with the FCC also with a crooked leftist judge through the courts AND they savage his sponsors.
They always go after conservative's sponsors, through coordinated attacks. They attack conservative businesses, go to conservative's homes to intimidate their families
They recently forced Coulter to cancel her Berkeley speech, they've outlawed campaign speech contributions (though the courts overturned that). They war against everything FOX News, they've physically attacked people for attending Republican conventions, Milo speeches and Trump rallies. They want Internet, cable and broadcast speech heavily regulated in order to quash conservative views...
And I bet you every leftist here is totally on board with every bit of that fascist agenda
Speaking of Coulter...
quote:
EVERY TIME I TRY TO BE MAD AT TRUMP, THE MEDIA PULL ME BACK
May 17, 2017
Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it's the fake news story about Trump "leaking" classified information to the Russkies.
The president can't "leak" classified information: It's his to declassify.
The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.
The New York Times, March 22, 2017:
Devices Banned on Some Planes Over ISIS Fears
"Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers ... two senior American counterterrorism officials said. ..."
This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.
Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?
Bear with me here, I'm still working out the details, but I'm almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can't block a president's temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he's testy with Trump over some campaign statements.
As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician's campaign statements for improper motive, because 1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and 2) to start doing so would open the door to "examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions."
Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump's travel ban: "Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws."
To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge's absurd ruling. At their ages, there's a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.
Arguing against Trump's exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn't get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)
At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: "Islam is peace."
There's a new legal principle!
Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: "I think the most important point is, if you don't say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this."
As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!
But as long as we're operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president's rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?
For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?
Trump: "I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. ... Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that."
Full column here
|
|
|
|
