Brazile Admits Leaking Questions and OPEN THREAD

From FoxNews:

Former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile admitted Friday that she forwarded Democratic primary town hall questions to members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign – something she had previously denied.

In an essay for Time published Friday, called “Russian DNC Narrative Played Out Exactly As They Hoped,” the Democratic strategist said she had in fact passed on topics, despite saying she had not when her communications with the campaign were leaked by WikiLeaks in October.

“[I]n October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,” she wrote.

In October, emails from Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta’s account were released by WikiLeaks showing that Brazile – then a CNN contributor – had forwarded questions ahead of a March primary debate.

[…]

However, in an interview with Fox News on Oct. 19, Brazile denied helping Clinton during the primaries. She said she was being persecuted and questioned the credibility of the hacked files.

“As a Christian woman, I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted,” Brazile said. “Your information is totally false.”

Brazile now says she will “forever regret” tipping Clinton off. I wonder if Brazile, as a Christian woman, regrets lying to the American people. I also wonder why Hillary Rodham-Clinton never came forward to denounce Brazile’s actions once she became aware of the questions in advance. Corrupt is as corrupt does.

How To Be A Loser By Betting On A Winner
The Future of Nuclear Power
  • Scalia

    N.Y. bill would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others:

    From New York Assembly Bill 5323, introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), a bill aimed at securing a “right to be forgotten”:

    Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
    “all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
    “and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
    “ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
    “which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
    “is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
    “especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
    “with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”
    Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

    So, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role). And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.

    • jim_m

      Forget secession. The union should expel the blue states as fascist strongholds and be done with it.

    • pennywit

      Bad idea.

      • jim_m

        Unconstitutional on its face, that is unless they get a lefty judge who doesn’t give a damn about the law.

    • Brett Buck

      Wildly and literally unconstitutional.

  • Scalia

    Secret Service laptop with Trump Tower floor plans stolen in New York:

    A laptop computer containing floor plans for Trump Tower and other national security information was stolen from a Secret Service agent’s vehicle in New York City on Thursday, a law enforcement official told ABC News.

    The agency confirmed that an agency-issued laptop was stolen, but it did not offer details on its contents. The Secret Service did say the stolen laptop itself could not have contained classified material but could have been used to access such material on a server.

    In addition to the laptop, the thief made off with official Secret Service lapel pins, according to law enforcement sources with knowledge of the matter.

    “The U.S. Secret Service can confirm that an employee was the victim of a criminal act in which our Agency issued laptop computer was stolen,” the agency said in a statement on Friday.

    • jim_m

      The Secret Service should be disbanded with regards to managing Presidential security and this should be outsourced to private agencies that are far more thorough and professional.

      • Lightninbug

        At the very least, a reprimand should be entered into this individual’s permanent record.

  • Scalia

    Federal judge in Hawaii halts Trump travel ban:

    President Trump’s revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii just hours before it was set to take effect after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.

    Trump addressed the judge’s move during a rally in Nashville, Tennessee calling it “unprecedented judicial overreach” and vowed to fight.

    “We’re going to win. We’re going to keep our citizens safe,” Trump said. “The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

    The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson prevents the executive order from going into effect, at least for now. Hawaii had requested a temporary restraining order.

    • jim_m

      It seems to me that the judge invalidated his order in his own remarks. He states that there would never have been a case with any other President except Trump. That is an admission that the effect of the Presidential Order is not discriminatory and that there would have been no grounds to bring a case against the order on the effects of the order themselves.

      What the left and this corrupt fascist judge have done is create a thought crime. The actual effects of the action are immaterial. It is the thoughts behind it that matter.

      So if you go into the bakery and remark that you would like to steal the loaf of bread, but then go ahead and pay for it. When you leave the store with your bread and receipt for payment in hand you can be arrested for theft based on your remarks. You wanted to break the law and that is all this court need to send you to prison.

    • pennywit

      Haven’t read the judge’s decision yet, but on a gut level, I’m not comfortable with it.

    • Retired military

      Well if someone gets hurt by an immigrant that would have been stopped by this order they should sue the judge. Yeah yeah I know they cant but hey one can dream cant they.

      • jim_m

        The judge should be impeached for inserting his personal political views instead of the law.

    • jim_m

      The proper response here is that since Hawaii has heretofore taken zero refugees, that 100% of all refugees admitted due to this restraining order should be sent to Hawaii and settled there. Let Hawaii become a muslim state. Let them deal with reality for once.

  • Scalia

    More fake news from CNN:

    Juan Williams shoots down CNN’s ‘sensationalized’ gun story on Sean Hannity

    Fox News contributor Juan Williams took to Twitter Thursday night to blast CNN for a “sensationalized” gun story about Sean Hannity.

    CNN’s Dylan Byers published “Sources: Sean Hannity once pulled a gun on Juan Williams” Thursday evening, which covers an October 2016 incident between the two men. Multiple sources said that a gun was brandished and a laser sight pointed at Mr. Williams‘ body, which caused complaints to Fox News executives. Both Fox stars downplayed the event in statements released to CNN and on social media.

    “This incident is being sensationalized — everything was under total control throughout and I never felt like I was put in harm’s way,” Mr. Williams said on Twitter, echoing an earlier statement to the network. “It was clear that Sean put my safety and security above all else and we continue to be great friends.”

    A Fox News spokesperson told CNN that its legal and human resources departments found “that no one was put in any danger” during the encounter.

    “While discussing the issue of firearms, I showed my good friend Juan Williams my unloaded firearm in a professional and safe manner for educational purposes only,” Mr. Hannity’s statement to CNN read. “Every precautionary procedure that I have been trained in since the age of 11 was followed. I’ve had a conceal carry permit in five states for all of my adult life. Any other interpretation of this is outright false reporting.”

  • Scalia

    Niki Ashton, NDP leadership candidate, capitulates to Black Lives Matter by deleting Beyonce-themed tweet:

    NDP leadership candidate Niki Ashton wilted to pressure from Black Lives Matter (YVR) this week after the organization blasted her for “appropriating black culture” by using a Beyonce song to promote her left-leaning platform.

    The BLM chapter, which boasts 754 Twitter followers, took issue with a photo Ashton posted on the social media site this week that read “To the Left, to the Left” — lyrics from Beyonce’s hit single ‘Irreplaceable’.

    “Like Beyonce says, to the left,” Ashton’s now-deleted tweet read. “Time for an unapologetic left turn tor the #NDP, for social, racial, enviro, and economic justice.”

    Ironically, Ashton wasn’t “unapologetic” for long.

    She quickly capitulated when BLM took aim at her on Twitter, tweeting “@nikiashton Appropriating Black culture is not intersectional feminism. Please delete your ‘to the left’ FB post & address the issue #ndp.”

    • Walter_Cronanty

      WTH is “intersectional feminism”? I’ve got to keep up with my progressive sins.

      • Retired military

        Hope you got a computer with a lot of hard drive space.

      • pennywit

        Intersectionalism isn’t a “sin.” Google coughed up this definition:

        the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

        The idea is that racism, sexism, and other “-isms” should be considered as a whole, rather than separate things. I don’t this this holistic approach is entirely incorrect. But it’s also easy to leap from this to “all of the white people are trying to keep everyone down.”

        In the political arena, it’s just a new word for classic coalition-building.

        • jim_m

          Intersectionalism is an artificial concept aimed at dividing people into competing social groups allowing political parties the ability to set interest groups against one another in the hopes of gaining political advantage and advancing an agenda by doing so.

          Intersectionalism works by dividing people into small groups, isolating target groups (males, Christians, whites) for the purpose of marginalizing their influence and is openly antagonistic toward the concepts of equality for social groups that are out of favor.

          Intersectionalism differs from classic coalition building in that it declares that people belong to distinct groups that have distinct interests and that their interests do not overlap.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          OK – help me out some more. Given the use of “intersectional feminism” in the context of the article [“Appropriating Black culture is not intersectional feminism.”], what does that mean?
          I won’t go into the fact that the song in question was co-written by a white Norwegian male – thus the “cultural appropriation” and “feminism” claims are completely beyond me.

          • pennywit

            In this context, it’s nonsense. You and I would say that NDP Lady quoted a popular song while writing a political message. BLM says that she was trying to be intersectional (a good thing), but that her intersectionality came across as appropriation (which is a bad thing).

            Personally, I think they’re full of it.

    • pennywit

      Incidentally, this makes the whole issue more interesting:

      So what is really going on here?

      If people stopped to read what Black Lives Matter Vancouver was saying, they would see that Ashton is being asked, by a group from a race that has been repeatedly used as a social-fairness prop to win elections, only to be discarded when it comes to keeping promises, to prove her alliance in actions, not just in words.

      It’s not enough, they are saying, to have a bio that says, “She is known for proudly rocking a No DAPL T-shirt and listening to Beyoncé,” as Ashton’s does on Facebook.

      “We hope you’re sincere about fighting for racial justice. If so, we want to see more real engagement with our communities,” BLM said on Twitter.

      “We want concrete plans to fight anti-Black racism in Canada, not a white MP using a Black artist to self-promote.”

      • Scalia

        Then they can argue that by utilizing their free speech rights. To accuse her of culture appropriation serves to undermine their professed objectives.

        The fact that they were not aware how silly this made them look is evidence how out of touch they are.

        • pennywit

          Accusing her of appropriation is free speech, even if it’s a dumb charge. But you are right. “You are happy to quote a black artist, but don’t do squat for African-Americans” resonates a bit more than “APPROPRIATION!!!”

  • Jwb10001

    I did not have email with that woman, Ms Clinton! Oops there’s email DNA on her pant suit, RACIST!

  • Wild_Willie

    Brazille would NEVER apologize openly unless something was going on. Maybe the investigation into Hillary took a turn and she is trying to get some distance from her.

    On the SS losing a laptop. President Trump has to take this as a purposeful leak. With the recent stealing of his tax record, it is obvious some on the inside are moving against him. I even have doubts why fence jumpers at the WH get as close as they do now. Clean house Mr. President. NOW! ww

    • yetanotherjohn

      I suspect that she is trying for a book deal.

  • cathymv

    Braille continually lied, Hillary had no ethical dilemma about accepting information, Sanders got screwed by Hillary and dnc and continued to support both…….pathetic is too mild a word!!!!

    • Paul Hooson

      Indeed, it was one of the worst elections of my lifetime where I did not like either nominee very much at all. I never liked Hillary very much and disliked Mr.,Trump since the 1980’s.

      • cathymv

        I have no problem with Trump. I like is attitude and I have no problem with his abrasive personality. He is not a perfect man – but he is a decent man. The same can never ever ever be said for Hillary. She is a horrible person and an evil politician. She truly belongs in jail, right next to her rapist husband.

  • jim_m

    Brazille explained that she is/was a democrat operative before she was a political commentator. This was not an apology. This was bragging that she had a job and she did it and is not sorry in the least for having done so. Her claim that this will “haunt her’ is bullshit.

  • Brucehenry

    Since this is an open thread I’d like to recommend this article. It’s kind of a long one, but I’d be especially interested to hear the thoughts of pennywit and Scalia in regards to it.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/revolt-judges-what-happens-when-judiciary-doesnt-trust-presidents-oath

    • jim_m

      Interestingly, the article points out that in the Hawaii case, standing has not actually been established. There is a presumption of harm that has not been demonstrated. By that alone it should be thrown out.

      • Brucehenry

        Well, no, not exactly. “Neither Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii not Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland have much trouble finding that plaintiffs before them had standing to sue.”

        • jim_m

          Read it with more acuity.

          For one thing, at least some of the standing analysis seems off. Judge Watson, for example, found standing for a man on grounds that his mother-in-law might not be able to visit him and his wife because of the ban, though she had not yet even sought a waiver of the ban’s applicability to her; in other words, it’s totally unclear that she will even be meaningfully impacted by the new version of the policy. In fact, the EO specifically lists visitation of a close family member who is also a U.S. citizen or resident as possible grounds for a waiver. Similarly, a standing analysis that made sense the first time around by a state—that its university would be adversely affected—seems at least a little premature without knowing anything about how many people associated with that university will actually be kept out of the
          country. This time around, after all, student study is listed explicitly
          as possible basis for a waiver. There may well be standing here, but the opinions are hasty on the points.

          So you haven’t really read the article you linked. And you accept the judge’s ruling as gospel when my point was that it was in error on standing and is likely to be overturned on that basis as well as some others. If your argument is that the judge’s ruling on standing is settled law, then the entirety of the ruling could be argued to be the same and there is no point of having an appellate court.

          • Brucehenry

            No I read it, and also read your assertion, made as fact, that “standing has not actually been established.” It’s true that that seems to be the opinion of the writer of the article, but that writer makes no attempt to disguise the fact that his opinion is just that — his opinion. He doesn’t declare, as you seem to be doing, that “standing has not actually been established,” just that he disagrees with the judges who say it has. I’m sure there are many lawyers who agree with those judges, and also many lawyers who agree with him, and with you.

            I won’t address your second paragraph, written ex post facto and after I had already replied.

          • jim_m

            My second paragraph was made before your edit was apparent, which you know damned well is the case that edits only appear after the page is refreshed.

            Standing has been ruled upon, but it is obvious that it can be contested and possibly overturned. You are dismissing the contrary opinion because it suits your bias to overturn the rule of law. You are seeking reason to believe that your side is ot completely lawless. You will not find that from anyone except on the fascist left.

          • Brucehenry

            OK now that I’ve heard from you, I hope one of the two people here that I know are lawyers will comment.

          • jim_m

            Here Bruce, relevant to your questions on the Presidential order

            Five judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals went out of their way to denounce the “fundamental errors” in the February decision of a three-judge panel which effectively stopped President Donald Trump’s first executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, attacked as a “Muslim Ban.” The five judges denounced the panel’s ruling as a “clear misstatement of law,” and argued that they had an “obligation to correct” it for the record.

            “We are judges, not Platonic Guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress,” the judges declared. They argued that the panel’s February ruling constituted clear judicial activism which undermined the separation of powers.

          • Brucehenry

            You seem to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that I am a champion of the Hawaii and/or the Maryland decisions. Not necessarily. I find both decisions troubling for exactly the same reasons you and the authors of the Lawfare article do. Not being a lawyer myself I asked Scalia and pennywit to weigh in on it.

            Another reason it is troubling, as the authors of the article pose the question, is the question is to what extent a president as erratic and buffoonish as Trump make decisions like this inevitable.

            “But also there is a third possibility, and we should be candid about it: Perhaps everything Blackman and Margulies and Bybee are saying is right as a matter of law in the regular order, but there’s an unexpressed legal principle functionally at work here: That President Trump is a crazy person whose oath of office large numbers of judges simply don’t trust and to whom, therefore, a whole lot of normal rules of judicial conduct do not apply.”

            I have no doubt that, had a wacky Democrat like, say, Maxine Waters somehow conned her way on a populist wave into the oval office and then issued controversial EO’s, you would be saying that “judicial activism” of this sort is necessary.

            My questions to Scalia and pennywit would be, is this unwarranted? Are there any circumstances they could envision in which it would be permissible for judges to assume that a president is not acting in good faith or in sincere adherence to his oath of office and therefore his power must be counteracted in this way?

            I can guess Scalia’s answer to the first question but I don’t have a clear idea of the answer either would give on the second.

          • jim_m

            No I would not say that judicial activism is necessary. I believe that a return to textualism is necessary. A return to understanding what the original intent was and forcing the legislative branch to pass new laws or amend the constitution as appropriate is the proper path forward, rather than simply redefining the laws through judicial fiat as many on the left seem to advocate.

          • Brucehenry

            You wouldn’t say that? Oh, okay, I stand corrected, lol.

          • jim_m

            Refresh for my edit

          • Brucehenry

            So if bad faith on the president’s part is demonstrated and “should be remedied,” is there anything the judicial branch could or should do to effect such a remedy?

          • jim_m

            As I stated: If the law is legal and constitutional, the state of mind of the President is irrelevant. Bad faith comes in when the President refuses to do his constitutional duty.

          • Brucehenry

            So what is your defense, then, of Reagan willfully disobeying the law that forbade selling or giving arms to Iran and the one that specifically prohibited providing funds to Nicaraguan “Contras”?

          • jim_m

            It was a violation of the Boland amendment which was never properly contested before the Supreme Court as I believe it was an unconstitutional restriction of the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

          • Brucehenry

            Then why did Reagan himself sign the legislation containing the Boland Amendment(s)?

          • jim_m

            You do understand that a real President makes compromises with Congress? Not everyone is a hyper-partisan, anti-American asshole like obama.

          • Vis the former President.

          • Retired military

            “That President Trump is a crazy person whose oath of office large numbers of judges simply don’t trust and to whom, therefore, a whole lot of normal rules of judicial conduct do not apply.””

            That is a slippery road you are going down Bruce. Judges who have no personnel interaction with a person ruling them as “crazy” when it is a doctor’s job to determine mental health. Doctors who BTW have interaction with the patients in question. The constitution has ways to get rid of a president who is unfit. You start using unelected judges to do that and you might as well throw away the rest of the constitution as well.

            As for your Maxine Waters comment, I feel that Obama was as bad if not worse as President then Waters would have ever been. But I would not say that a judge has a right to deny a president which is clearly outlined by the constitution.

            “a president is not acting in good faith or in sincere adherence to his oath of office”

            Obama fits the bill on this statement in a lot of respects.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not the one going down that road. The question of whether we are all being forced to go down that road is raised in the article.

          • Retired military

            Sorry Bruce. I misread the statement above and thought you were making it, not quoting it from an article.

          • Lightninbug

            The Law does not include exceptions in it for erratic or buffoonish presidents (your concepts, not mine). You must be hoping for an addendum that might add your prattlings.

          • Brucehenry

            I KNOW it doesn’t. That’s why this is troubling. The authors are asking if this will become an issue. I suspect it will because Trump is such an anomaly well-meaning judges may think they have to put a brake on him. And they may have a point, but will set a dangerous precedent if they do. If they DON’T on the other hand Trump himself may do irreparable damage.

          • jim_m

            How is doing something legal “irreparable damage” to the nation? You certainly didn’t have that problem with obama.

          • Brucehenry

            Federal judges in three districts do not agree that what Trump is trying to do is legal. Maybe it is and maybe it ain’t. SCOTUS will eventually rule on it.

          • jim_m

            None of them have actually cited case law in their opinions. They have all cited irrelevant campaign rhetoric instead.

          • Brucehenry

            I get that. And I’m not a lawyer which is why I asked for the opinions of two that I know are. You aren’t, and I already know yours.

          • jim_m

            OK. So you admit to the fact that none of these judges have cited case law in their opinions and you don’t find that a weakness? It seems that you should be able to answer your own question.

          • Brucehenry

            Obviously it’s a weakness. Whether it makes the decisions so weak that they don’t stand up on appeal remains to be seen.

          • Lightninbug

            I certainly had no intention whatsoever of implying that the judges were, as you say, “well meaning”. That misnomer certainly opens a can of worms most conservatives will be happy to invalidate.

          • pennywit

            If a president is erratic or buffoonish, the constitutional checks are Congress and the Cabinet.

          • Scalia

            Guess no more. My answers are yes and no, in order. There’s not a chance I would ever advocate conservative judicial activism (as my brief essay on Advice and Consent indicates), and there isn’t any circumstance in which a judge is permitted to question the good faith of the president.

            It is beyond the role of judges to set themselves against a president they don’t like. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78:

            Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

            This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

            Given this backdrop, it is unquestionable that these judges are extending themselves beyond the scope of their duties.

            The judges here are committing the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy in blocking the EO by questioning the president’s motives. It is entirely irrelevant what a person’s motives are, whether on the debate team or as president of the United States, when it comes to logical argument. Though there is legal precedent for contextualizing laws, applying it in this manner is grotesque and nakedly partisan.

            The authors of the piece you cite seem sympathetic to judges who are understandably offended by what they may perceive as unwarranted attacks by the president on their profession. At the very least, they offer it as a reason such judges are aggressively opposing Trump. If that is why these judges are issuing such ridiculous rulings, it demonstrates that they lack the temperament to be sitting on the bench. A judge is supposed to be competent enough to ignore personal attacks and rule solely on the law and whether it conforms to the Constitution. If a judge is going to jettison his duties because the president calls him names, he should find another line of work.

          • Lightninbug

            Your comment makes for dam fine reading sir.

          • Scalia

            That’s kind of you to say. Thank you.

          • Brucehenry

            Thank you for reading the article and replying.

          • pennywit

            Did you read Judge Bybe’s dicta?

          • Scalia

            Yes. And?

          • pennywit

            Just curious — he had some opinions for Trump in there.

          • Scalia

            Yes, he was quite sharp, but why shouldn’t people call out a nakedly partisan decision? I appreciate the importance of professional comity, but if these judges are going to question the president’s good will, and if they’re going to invalidate a perfectly legal EO due to the president’s campaign statements, why shouldn’t their good will also be questioned? Sauce for the gander, you know. If they’re going to extend themselves beyond their legitimate office, they deserve to be pilloried.

          • pennywit

            My questions to Scalia and pennywit would be, is this unwarranted? Are there any circumstances they could envision in which it would be permissible for judges to assume that a president is not acting in good faith or in sincere adherence to his oath of office and therefore his power must be counteracted in this way?

            I don’t think judges should approach a president’s actions with this assumption. But I do think it’s entirely appropriate for parties in a lawsuit to introduce evidence of the other party’s bad faith.

          • Scalia

            Why is it appropriate in this instance?

          • pennywit

            In this instance, I don’t think it is. I think assessing intent might be more appropriate in an as-applied challenge.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks for replying

    • Retired military

      Bruce
      I havent read the article but assume it is about the Hawaii case.

      I find it interesting that the judge basically said that since it was Trump who signed the order he has stopped it but if another President had signed the EO who didnt say what Trump had said on the campaign trail then he wouldnt have stopped enforcement of it.

      Strange how if one President signs an EO then it is considered unconstitutional by this judge but if another President signs it then it is constitutional.

      • jim_m

        A law has to be about what the law actually says, not the biases behind those who write it.

        At that point we should sue to invalidate the Louisiana Purchase because Jefferson was a slave owner. Frankly, I am surprised the left hasn’t started that yet.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes this is what the article is about. I agree it’s troubling but this has happened in other countries who took the rule of law for granted. They elected a tinpot tyrant whose sincerity in regard to his oath of office could not be trusted, and therefore their system was thrown out of whack.

        • jim_m

          So your argument is that the rule of law should be subverted when the so-called tyrant issues orders that any other leader would issue but the law must be circumvented in order to oppose any and all actions by this so-called tyrant.

          Seems to me what you are advocating for is called treason.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not making an argument I’m asking for the opinion of two of the regular commenters here on the article, which raises troubling questions.

          • jim_m

            Your above comment presumes fact not in evidence. You presume that Trump is a fascist dictator, when in fact the tactics of the left bear far more resemblance to fascist tactics of the last century than do Trump’s statements, his Presidential orders or his campaign.

            The only subversion of the rule of law is coming from the left. This has been true for over a decade.

          • Brucehenry

            Standard Jim boilerplate hogwash.

          • jim_m

            So my counterpoint to your baseless accusation that Trump is a fascist dictator is “Boilerplate”. I dare you to provide an ounce of evidence for your accusations. They are hyperbolic left wing kant and you know it.

          • Brucehenry

            *cant*

          • jim_m

            yes, and you have no answers or excuses. You at least avoid a BS denial.

          • Retired military

            Bruce

            What is the difference between Trump’s travel ban and the one initiated by Obama during his presidency?

          • Brucehenry

            There was no suspension of the entire refugee program under Obama. There was “extra scrutiny” which resulted in delay in processing applications from those 7 countries. The “ban” wasn’t a blanket one, and didn’t affect (as did Trump’s first attempt) legal green-card holders or those whose applications for visas were already in process. Finally, there was no history of statements by Obama calling for a “ban on Muslims.”

          • Retired military

            But what does the history of calling for a ban muslims have to do with it.

            a. There was no such ban in the EO which is what the judge was supposed to be looking at to see if it is constitutional.

            b. Muslims from countries other than those listed were still allowed in the US.

            c. The new ban does not affect the green card holders.

            Going by your statement of previous statements being considered if something is constitutional than SCOTUS should have turned down Obamacare since Obama and his legal team repeatedly said that it wasnt a tax even though SCOTUS found that it was and used that a basis of constitutionality. .

            Also Obama saying if you like your doctor you can keep it and you will save an average of $2500 means that no law dealing with these subjects that did not provide them would be found constitutional.

            In addition, Clinton had made previous statements about marriage being between a man and woman prior to changing their minds. Are you saying that due to those statements that the law shouldnt provide for marriage of gays?

          • Brucehenry

            You asked what were some of the differences and I answered. Again I am not defending the Hawaii decision.

        • Retired military

          Thanks for answering Bruce.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes I did on the thread in which you kept asking it. I said a tarmac at the airport in full view of the press and public is an odd place for conspirators to conspire. Maybe a conspiracy was hatched in front of God and everybody but maybe the conversation was exactly as innocuous as claimed.

        • jim_m

          It was quite apparent that Clinton and Lynch were surprised that their meeting became public knowledge. They clearly believed that their meeting would go unreported. Also, the contents of that meeting were never divulged. Only a complete ass believes that two people who have never met arranged such a meeting to discuss weddings and grandchildren. And since you believe so, the above statement has been validated as true.

          • Lightninbug

            Did the two not retire to one of the personal conveyances in which they arrived? It was my understanding that they did so and who knows what the content of their private conversation was?

            I’m guessing it contained less of grandchildren and more of the meeting to be held two days later with wild bill’s wife.

          • Brucehenry

            And that’s quite possible. But it seems odd that they would have this conspiracy-advancing meeting on a tarmac where reporters were there to speculate on what they were talking about.

            If two mobsters wanted to divvy up the protection rackets in central Detroit, do you think they would drive to a diner in Lansing and meet 100 feet away from FBI surveillance, or would they do it more clandestinely?

          • jim_m

            Nobody was accusing either Lynch or the former sexual predator in chief of being geniuses.

          • Brucehenry

            OK

          • Retired military

            If they knew that the FBI couldnt surveil where they were eating they would .

          • Lightninbug

            I would think that such visible people as these two might well have thought that the “coincidental” landings of their transports at an airfield far from the madding crowd on the East Coast might well have provided them with the opportunity for a quick and ostensibly non-partisan chitchat.

            Still, someone put them in a precarious position by alerting the press to the “unarranged” meeting taking place in such close proximity to the cordial get together of HRC with the FBI.

        • Retired military

          Thank you for the answer. The setting you describe seems to be as strangely familiar as the Big Mike controversy. However, they werent in front God and everyone they were on a plane talking. And noone in the press or public could hear what they were saying. But again thanks for your answer.

    • pennywit

      Throwing out a law based on intent, rather than the law’s actual wording or its effects, is a tricksy thing. You have to be damn sure you know exactly what the intent is and that you’re not reading your own perception into the law at issue. And even then, you have to be careful. A politician may (for example) be an avowed white supremacist, but that doesn’t automatically mean that his proposal to outlaw affirmative action is unconstitutional.

      Beyond that, the relationship between this president and the judiciary is troubling. Trump has made his contempt for the judiciary (or at least certain judges) known, and the judiciary has responded with hostility. Hell, even when he took Trump’s side, Judge Bybee spanked Trump in dicta for lashing out at the courts.

      • pennywit

        (And now that I reread it, “spanked Trump in dicta” sounds like a scene from a law-themed porn, doesn’t it?)

      • Retired military

        “Throwing out a law based on intent, rather than the law’s actual wording or its effects, is a tricksy thing”
        As opposed to what Roberts did to save Obamacare by completely disregarding the wording of the law (in the 2nd case against it) and totally ignoring what the Obama admin lawyers said about the law (saying it wasn’t a tax) in the first case against it.

  • Paul Hooson

    What makes no sense at all to me is that Mr. Trump only continues to make problems for himself with his continued irresponsible Twitter messages, then his staff run around hoping to find something, somewhere, in the greatest hunt since “SAVING PRIVATE RYAN”, to find some justification somewhere for the obviously nonsense Twitter message. Trump’s ability to effectively govern is undermined by wasting each week with this cycle it seems, and this is partially responsible for his sagging approval numbers, where the latest Gallup Poll has Trump at a mere 37% approval number on Sunday. There seems to be a complete breakdown of any sort of effective damage control here to effectively dispel problems like Russia questions and where spokesman Sean Spicer appears to be part of the problems, and not a solution.

    If Mr. Trump was half the businessman he claims, he should be better able to deal with complaints just like an in-store complaint counter does.

  • pennywit

    Yes, this article is ten years old. But it’s still a pretty good read about robots on the battlefield:

    The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have become an unprecedented field study in human relationships with intelligent machines. These conflicts are the first in history to see widespread deployment of thousands of battle bots. Flying bots range in size from Learjets to eagles. Some ground bots are like small tanks. Others are the size of two-pound dumbbells, designed to be thrown through a window to scope out the inside of a room. Bots search caves for bad guys, clear roads of improvised explosive devices, scoot under cars to look for bombs, spy on the enemy and, sometimes, kill humans.

    Even more startling than these machines’ capabilities, however, are the effects they have on their friendly keepers who, for example, award their bots “battlefield promotions” and “purple hearts.”

    “Ours was called Sgt. Talon,” says Sgt. Michael Maxson of the 737th Ordnance Company (EOD). “We always wanted him as our main robot. Every time he was working, nothing bad ever happened. He always got the job done. He took a couple of detonations in front of his face and didn’t stop working. One time, he actually did break down in a mission, and we sent another robot in and it got blown to pieces. It’s like he shut down because he knew something bad would happen.” The troops promoted the robot to staff sergeant — a high honor, since that usually means a squad leader. They also awarded it three “purple hearts.”

    Humans have long displayed an uncanny ability to make emotional connections with their manufactured helpmates. Car owners for generations have named their vehicles. In “Cast Away,” Tom Hanks risks his life to save a volleyball named Wilson, who has become his best friend and confidant. Now that our creations display elements of intelligence, however, the bonds humans forge with their machines are even more impressive. Especially when humans credit their bots with saving their lives.

    • Scalia

      Kinda weird.

      • pennywit

        No weirder than Wojtek

        • Scalia

          The real Smoky Bear!

          • pennywit

            Groan.

      • pennywit

        It raises a couple interesting questions/thoughts, though:

        1) It’s somewhat ironic that the robots are deployed to save human lives, yet soldiers in the field anthropomorphize the robots to the point that they see them, not as fellow soldiers, but seemingly on the same level as beloved pets.

        2) It’s easy for me, a non-soldier, non-veteran to say that soldiers in the field shouldn’t get attached to these robots … but how would I feel about a little robot that saved my life on several occasions?

        3) What do we do when one of these robots says, Cogito, ergo sum? (See, for example, the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Quality of Life.”)

        • Scalia

          Speaking of Star Trek, remember the episode when Kirk fell in love with a droid? How about the computer that fell in love with Apollo in Battlestar Galactica? Come to think of it, I recall an old Twilight Zone episode depicting a prisoner on a barren asteroid falling in love with a robot that was given to him for companionship.

          Look for droid rights to make its way through the courts. The right to marry one’s droid will be found in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.

          • pennywit

            You know, when I was a kid, I thought the rights of AIs would be the defining civil-rights issue of my lifetime.