General Trump Administration F**kery Thread (2017-2021)

invincible1914

G.O.M.A.B.
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
14,986
Reputation
1,490
Daps
33,556
Reppin
LSU, Saints, Alcorn, VCU
You didn't answer my question. I do not think Trump will succeed in this attempt to overturn the election, but Republicans have shown they are short on shame and long on ambition/imagination. They have also repeatedly shown that they are indifferent (at best) to democracy. We can talk about how institutions should behave, but what I care about is how they will behave.

Let's not forget some of the crazy ass questions ACB was refusing to answer during her nominations, including whether or not the President could unilaterally delay election day or even basic questions about the transfer of power.

I repeat, If SCOTUS decides to take this case, who has the power to tell them it is not within their jurisdiction?
You shouldn’t be this worried about it. Everybody knows it’s over except the dummies still giving Trump money. That’s why he keeps woofing. He’s just trying to pay off campaign debt.
 

MAKAVELI25

the heir apparent
Supporter
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
18,909
Reputation
5,675
Daps
75,049
Reppin
#ByrdGang
You shouldn’t be this worried about it. Everybody knows it’s over except the dummies still giving Trump money. That’s why he keeps woofing. He’s just trying to pay off campaign debt.

No offense, breh, but you still haven't answered my question.
 

invincible1914

G.O.M.A.B.
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
14,986
Reputation
1,490
Daps
33,556
Reppin
LSU, Saints, Alcorn, VCU
No offense, breh, but you still haven't answered my question.
I think your question is what if this case gets taken up by the the Supreme Court. The answer is it can’t be. It would have to go the the individual’s state Supreme Court before going to the US Supreme Court. No state is going to decertify their election process and send it up to determine if it’s constitutional. He can’t even get a proper hearing before it getting tossed out as merit-less.

I’m not a lawyer or anything though.
 

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
10,996
Reputation
2,548
Daps
67,169
Reppin
Imperium of Man
If SCOTUS decides to take this case, who has the power to tell them it is not within their jurisdiction?
Technically congress by way of impeachment. They would argue that SCOTUS had no right to intervene in state constitutional issues that do not violate federal law, and unless the court has completely lost its marbles, that is exactoy why they will not take the case. The case is saying that act 77 violates state law, not federal. They can't change their case on appeal.

Not a lawyer, but this is what I have gotten from my reading.
 

MAKAVELI25

the heir apparent
Supporter
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
18,909
Reputation
5,675
Daps
75,049
Reppin
#ByrdGang
Technically congress by way of impeachment. They would argue that SCOTUS had no right to intervene in state constitutional issues that do not violate federal law, and unless the court has completely lost its marbles, that is exactoy why they will not take the case. The case is saying that act 77 violates state law, not federal. They can't change their case on appeal.

Not a lawyer, but this is what I have gotten from my reading.

Technically you are correct about impeachment, but again my concern lies with how institutions will react, not how they should react.

There should have been a vote on Merrick Garland's nomination. There should have been testimony allowed at Trump's senate trial. The Georgia SOS should have been allowed to complete his count without intimidation from a Senator from another state. The Republicans stopped giving a fukk about what "should" happen a long time ago.

And with removal requiring 2/3rds of the Senate and a good faith governance from the Republican party, this scenario has no chance of occurring with the current Congress.
 
Last edited:

Blackfyre

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
17,203
Reputation
3,074
Daps
67,423
Reppin
Earthrealm

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,665
Reputation
-34,332
Daps
618,116
Reppin
The Deep State
ArFJMkC.gif

oB0Sun8.gif






lawandcrime.com


Federal Judge Advances Lawsuit Accusing Felix Sater of Laundering Loot Through Trump Properties
Adam KlasfeldNov 30th, 2020, 1:23 pm
1


GettyImages-1160978276-1200x627.jpg


Felix Sater, former business associate of U.S. President Donald Trump, arrives for testimony before the House Select Intelligence Committee July 9, 2019 in Washington, DC. Sater was the chief negotiator in the unsuccessful effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

A federal judge on Monday partially advanced a lawsuit accusing Russian mafia-tied businessman Felix Sater of laundering millions stolen from Kazakhstan’s BTA Bank through Trump Organization properties.

“In this case, Kazakhstan’s largest city and a Kazakhstani bank seek to recover millions of dollars in stolen funds from those who allegedly helped the culprits launder them,” U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan summarized in a 25-page opinion dismissing only two counts of a six-count complaint. “Felix Sater—the alleged ringleader of the money-laundering operation—along with his associate Daniel Ridloff and several business entities they control, move to dismiss.”

Like Sater, Ridloff was also formerly associated with the Trump Organization. The lawsuit stems from allegations of the systematic looting of Kazakhstan’s largest city Almaty and its bank in 2009.

“The Court emphasizes that the Kazakh entities will need to adduce evidence showing the Sater defendants’ deceptive conduct and their justifiable reliance on that conduct in significantly greater detail to meet their burdens of production and of proof as the case progresses,” Nathan wrote. “However, at this stage, the Court concludes that it is not clear on the face of the complaint that their claims are untimely, and so declines to dismiss any claims on that basis.”

Almaty’s attorney Craig A. Wenner, from the firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. Neither did Sater’s counsel Jill Levi, from the firm Todd & Levi, LLP.
 
Top