- cross-posted to:
- conservative@sh.itjust.works
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- conservative@sh.itjust.works
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
In Portland, Ore., however, a Trump appointee said no. She refused to play Trump’s game and instead held him accountable for his words. There is no deference due to a president who refuses to operate in good faith.
You must log in or register to comment.
The Trump administration has appealed Immergut’s order, but even if the Ninth Circuit reverses her ruling, other federal courts, including the Supreme Court, should pay close attention to her analysis.
This author is going to be very disappointed sometime in the near future.
The trial judge in the Chicago case came to an even more serious conclusion, that the testimony of the entire executive branch can be unreliable.
Great article and thanks for sharing. I dig the closing.
Dishonest presidents should be entitled to no deference at all.
Good faith is subjective. She will have her house burned down and suddenly not be an issue anymore.
People can downvote this all they want, but this is actually true, and maybe you remember Trump’s former-lawyer, Cohen, saying that he likes to do things the way mafia-bosses do, so his saying something like “it would be good if < someone > were to get permanently harmed” … & then have his lackies/flunkies ( don’t know which is which ) just do it, so that he never can be made-accountable for anything…
Yes, I expect a wave of murders to happen to opponents-of-Trump, within months or weeks…
The tipping-point is going to be crossed.
Yes, that kind of “dealing with” opponents is on the table.
People are too naive about what’s going-on, making-believing that status-quo will continue forever, & they’ve got forever to undo what Project2025’s doing…
It isn’t about ruling the US of A for a 4-year term, it is about DESTROYING anybody’s ability to interfere with Republican dictatorship, until everbody’s dead.
Different “game”, different rules.
As a ninja explained, in the book “Kenjutsu”, IF you’re trained to presume that your opponent will protect their life,
& they make a cut at you,
THEN you automatically make a cut at them, knowing that they’re going to divert their cut, to block yours, to save their life.
BUT … if they don’t care if they die, then … they don’t divert their cut, to block: then you die, right then ( they do too, but they took you out, because you were relying-on leverage that you didn’t actually have )
Countries make the same mistake.
The US is making that mistake, now.
Fatally.
_ /\ _
