Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
scipan
scipan's Journal
scipan's Journal
April 13, 2024
So, we (me included) are so focused on keeping Smelvis from winning 2024. We don't have to forget about that, but it might help to look farther down the road as well for our own soul feeding as well as giving others a vision of what we'd like to see. The basic idea of this series is to envision what we want for our grandchildren (or if you don't have children like me, humanity).
Please watch it for at least a bit because it gave me a different perspective I need and it might do the same for you. It starts with a scientific finding that, when you think about your self in the future, the same brain area lights up as when you feel empathy for others.
https://www.pbs.org/video/beyond-the-now-ft4j2u/
PBS series: A Brief History of the Future. Think Ahead
https://www.pbs.org/video/beyond-the-now-ft4j2u/So, we (me included) are so focused on keeping Smelvis from winning 2024. We don't have to forget about that, but it might help to look farther down the road as well for our own soul feeding as well as giving others a vision of what we'd like to see. The basic idea of this series is to envision what we want for our grandchildren (or if you don't have children like me, humanity).
Please watch it for at least a bit because it gave me a different perspective I need and it might do the same for you. It starts with a scientific finding that, when you think about your self in the future, the same brain area lights up as when you feel empathy for others.
https://www.pbs.org/video/beyond-the-now-ft4j2u/
April 11, 2024
Column: Jack Smith's latest push to get Donald Trump's Jan. 6 trial moving before the election
By Harry Litman
...Snip...
The bulk of the brief Smith filed Monday is a methodical rejection of Trump’s far-fetched claims to immunity from prosecution for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Smith and his Supreme Court specialist, Michael Dreeben, closely follow the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ persuasive, bipartisan opinion contradicting Trump on all points.
In the last few pages, however, Smith argues for the particular exigency of this case, noting that “even if a former president has some immunity from federal criminal prosecution for official acts, this prosecution should proceed.”
...snip ..
Smith contends that Trump’s attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power is a paradigmatic example of conduct that can’t be immunized. He describes what’s alleged against the former president as “a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end” — namely, staying in power by fraud.
In what may be the brief’s most consequential phrase, the special counsel insists that the case “should be remanded for trial” on the ground that whatever immunity the Constitution might provide a president, it can’t shield Trump from this prosecution.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-10/donald-trump-jan-6-trial-jack-smith-supreme-court-immunity-harry-litman
Good analysis of Smith reply in the SCOTUS immunity case.
March 18, 2024
https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C4nhv1WMnDl/?xmt=AQGznQPdxvExO00YSSMshk8t3J1tFQirh5UheFAXYMDjoQ
George Conway about the "bloodbath" remark
I really like his take. (Bold is mine)
There’s some commentary saying we should disregard Trump’s “bloodbath” remarks last night because he was talking about potential harms to the auto industry.
That is misguided. 1/x
Trump may well have been referring to a “bloodbath” in that industry. He’s sufficiently incoherent that, as is so often the case with him, it’s hard to tell one way other what exactly he’s talking about at any given moment. 2/x
I’m willing to assume for the sake of argument that he was referring to cars. And it makes no difference to his malicious intent or to the danger he and his rhetoric poses. 3/x
What matters is that he consistently uses apocalyptic and violent language in an indiscriminate fashion as a result of his psychopathy and correlative authoritarian tendencies, and because he’s just plain evil. 4/x
It’s a classic trait and technique of authoritarian demagogues. He catastrophizes *everything* to rile up his cultish supporters, and to bind them to him, and to make them willing to do his bidding. 5/x
That’s dangerous all around because he’s encouraging them to believe that conditions are so bad or will become so bad, and that the political opposition is so awful, that anything is justified—including law-breaking and violence—to prevent those conditions and to destroy the opposition. 6/x
And so it doesn’t matter what he’s specifically referring to at the moment. He could be talking about trans people in public bathrooms or the state of the auto industry or the border—it doesn’t matter. 7/x
He’s a dangerous psychopath, and after more than eight years of watching his sick behavior, we must not give him the benefit of the doubt. 8/8 (end).
That is misguided. 1/x
Trump may well have been referring to a “bloodbath” in that industry. He’s sufficiently incoherent that, as is so often the case with him, it’s hard to tell one way other what exactly he’s talking about at any given moment. 2/x
I’m willing to assume for the sake of argument that he was referring to cars. And it makes no difference to his malicious intent or to the danger he and his rhetoric poses. 3/x
What matters is that he consistently uses apocalyptic and violent language in an indiscriminate fashion as a result of his psychopathy and correlative authoritarian tendencies, and because he’s just plain evil. 4/x
It’s a classic trait and technique of authoritarian demagogues. He catastrophizes *everything* to rile up his cultish supporters, and to bind them to him, and to make them willing to do his bidding. 5/x
That’s dangerous all around because he’s encouraging them to believe that conditions are so bad or will become so bad, and that the political opposition is so awful, that anything is justified—including law-breaking and violence—to prevent those conditions and to destroy the opposition. 6/x
And so it doesn’t matter what he’s specifically referring to at the moment. He could be talking about trans people in public bathrooms or the state of the auto industry or the border—it doesn’t matter. 7/x
He’s a dangerous psychopath, and after more than eight years of watching his sick behavior, we must not give him the benefit of the doubt. 8/8 (end).
https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C4nhv1WMnDl/?xmt=AQGznQPdxvExO00YSSMshk8t3J1tFQirh5UheFAXYMDjoQ
March 11, 2024
I suggest voting machines are suspect and there's a good argument for hand counting.
Personally I trust the paper ballots/ electronic counters but anything that marks your ballot for you or worse counts your vote completely electronically is a bad idea.
Former software engineer here.
The whole point is to have checks. The latter 2 don't allow for any.
March 5, 2024
Laurence tribe has it right
It was up to the Supreme Court to solve the problem of 50 different states each doing their own thing. They punted.
Now we are left with a Constitutional Amendment without any means to enforce it. IMO that can't be right.
There was nothing in the amendment that said congress shall write enabling legislation. It only gave them the power .
Show me where I'm wrong. The basic idea is from tribe on Lawrence just now.
February 22, 2024
Two-Spirit (trans, non-binary) people predate MAGA and Christianity in North America by thousands of years. THEY held an important status within Indigenous communities— and the Lakota considered THEM sacred beings.
***
For my trans friends
Trans people predate Christianity by thousands of years
https://www.threads.net/@lakota_man/post/C3nlJlvRpc2/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==Two-Spirit (trans, non-binary) people predate MAGA and Christianity in North America by thousands of years. THEY held an important status within Indigenous communities— and the Lakota considered THEM sacred beings.
***
For my trans friends
February 15, 2024
Sheldon Whitehouse
@SenWhitehouse
4h • 28 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
Trump seems to be counting on the three justices he “chose” for appointment to the Supreme Court to get him out of trouble. But did Trump really choose them? Or was Trump the chump, in someone else’s game? Let’s have a look.
The justices were supposedly appointed from a “Federalist Society list” that Trump announced, saying that was the “gold standard.” But the Federalist Society has never shown the public, or admitted the existence of, any record of any report, or agenda item, or vote, on any list.
It actually wasn’t the Federalist Society’s list. So whose list was it?
Leonard Leo worked at the Federalist Society at the time, and also ran an array of front groups tasked with scheming to capture and control the Supreme Court, funded by a little crew of right-wing billionaires.
Getting the justices on the Court took money -- lots of it. And billionaires are accustomed to getting something for their money.
The Court capture operation cost over half a billion dollars. Anonymous donors wrote individual checks as big as fifteen and seventeen million dollars to pay for the ad campaigns. Maybe the same billionaire wrote all those checks.
One billionaire just set Leo up with a $1.6 billion slush fund, through a new front group. The billionaires had money and motive.
The role of Leo and the billionaires (sounds like a bad garage band) would help explain why they got away with calling it a “Federalist Society list” when it wasn’t.
A Federalist Society operative and big Federalist Society donors were involved, so the Federalist Society let it slide. And got some good publicity.
But that raises the question, who were the billionaire donors behind Leo who actually chose the justices for the list?
Start with the obvious: the Koch political operation was then the biggest political dark-money operation on the planet, and one keenly interested in packing the Court. The Kochs even brought Justice Thomas out to star at their fundraisers. So consider the Koch operation.
Look at the history. Remember how the Koch operation greeted candidate Trump? They despised him, and spent millions against him, and threatened to spend much more.
Remember how candidate Trump responded to the Koch political operation? He mocked it, and he mocked the Kochs, and he mocked the other Republican candidates who went out to Koch events to kiss the ring.
Like rival medieval principalities, House of Koch and House of Trump were at war. Until they weren’t. Suddenly, hostilities between them ceased.
By election night, David Koch was in the Trumps’ victory suite. What could explain peace breaking out between House of Trump and House of Koch? The Federalist Society list could, if it was actually a Koch list.
Imagine this truce agreement between Trump and the Koch fossil fuel barons. “You give us all your Supreme Court appointments (and while you’re at it throw in your energy and pollution regulators), and we will back off our attacks, and even support GOP field and GOTV work.”
But if you’re the Kochs, do you trust Trump with a secret deal? Of course not. So when Trump starts asking about ways to broker peace, your operatives Leonard Leo and Don McGahn cook up the “Federalist Society list” as a solution.
When Trump promised publicly to appoint from the list, that sealed the deal — and McGahn went into the White House as White House Counsel and the Kochs’ ‘inside man.’
As Court vacancies opened for Trump, he went to the “Federalist Society list,” but who chose which judges to nominate? I don’t know, but McGahn and Leo were at the center of it.
I suspect the Koch operation helped McGahn and Leo with the names, and Trump went along with their recommendations. Whether Trump knew they chose, or whether the Kochs, McGahn and Leo all played Trump like a chump, is anybody’s guess.
They even fiddled with the “Federalist Society list” along the way, to get Brett Kavanaugh on it, perhaps to help encourage Justice Kennedy’s retirement.
Kennedy liked Brett, who’d been his law clerk. If there’d been a real Federalist Society list, and someone was chosen who wasn’t on the original list, there’d have been outrage from the billionaires.
But if the deal all along was that the Kochs got to use Leo and McGahn to pick Trump’s justices for him, who would care?
All the parties to the original deal were in on the switch — a voluntary contractual amendment, if you will — so there was no complaint about it. (Nor, presumably, any corporate action by the Federalist Society about a change to its supposed list.)
With the deal now done, with the three supposed “Trump justices” perched safely on the Court, House of Koch has again declared political war against House of Trump, spending millions against him and threatening to spend more. So much for Trump and the Art of the Deal.
And so much for loyalty of the “Trump justices” being to Trump. In this scenario, Trump was the chump, not the decider.
For a final tell, look at whether Koch-funded front groups file amicus briefs when the Trump cases come up, and what the briefs say.
The best predictor of this Captured Court’s rulings is what the flotillas of billionaire-funded front groups tell the justices to do in their amicus briefs. Silence from them (or even attacks on Trump by them) will be deafening.
• • •
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757910192262615044.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
Sheldon Whitehouse: TSF was played by Koch
Sheldon Whitehouse
@SenWhitehouse
4h • 28 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
Trump seems to be counting on the three justices he “chose” for appointment to the Supreme Court to get him out of trouble. But did Trump really choose them? Or was Trump the chump, in someone else’s game? Let’s have a look.
The justices were supposedly appointed from a “Federalist Society list” that Trump announced, saying that was the “gold standard.” But the Federalist Society has never shown the public, or admitted the existence of, any record of any report, or agenda item, or vote, on any list.
It actually wasn’t the Federalist Society’s list. So whose list was it?
Leonard Leo worked at the Federalist Society at the time, and also ran an array of front groups tasked with scheming to capture and control the Supreme Court, funded by a little crew of right-wing billionaires.
Getting the justices on the Court took money -- lots of it. And billionaires are accustomed to getting something for their money.
The Court capture operation cost over half a billion dollars. Anonymous donors wrote individual checks as big as fifteen and seventeen million dollars to pay for the ad campaigns. Maybe the same billionaire wrote all those checks.
One billionaire just set Leo up with a $1.6 billion slush fund, through a new front group. The billionaires had money and motive.
The role of Leo and the billionaires (sounds like a bad garage band) would help explain why they got away with calling it a “Federalist Society list” when it wasn’t.
A Federalist Society operative and big Federalist Society donors were involved, so the Federalist Society let it slide. And got some good publicity.
But that raises the question, who were the billionaire donors behind Leo who actually chose the justices for the list?
Start with the obvious: the Koch political operation was then the biggest political dark-money operation on the planet, and one keenly interested in packing the Court. The Kochs even brought Justice Thomas out to star at their fundraisers. So consider the Koch operation.
Look at the history. Remember how the Koch operation greeted candidate Trump? They despised him, and spent millions against him, and threatened to spend much more.
Remember how candidate Trump responded to the Koch political operation? He mocked it, and he mocked the Kochs, and he mocked the other Republican candidates who went out to Koch events to kiss the ring.
Like rival medieval principalities, House of Koch and House of Trump were at war. Until they weren’t. Suddenly, hostilities between them ceased.
By election night, David Koch was in the Trumps’ victory suite. What could explain peace breaking out between House of Trump and House of Koch? The Federalist Society list could, if it was actually a Koch list.
Imagine this truce agreement between Trump and the Koch fossil fuel barons. “You give us all your Supreme Court appointments (and while you’re at it throw in your energy and pollution regulators), and we will back off our attacks, and even support GOP field and GOTV work.”
But if you’re the Kochs, do you trust Trump with a secret deal? Of course not. So when Trump starts asking about ways to broker peace, your operatives Leonard Leo and Don McGahn cook up the “Federalist Society list” as a solution.
When Trump promised publicly to appoint from the list, that sealed the deal — and McGahn went into the White House as White House Counsel and the Kochs’ ‘inside man.’
As Court vacancies opened for Trump, he went to the “Federalist Society list,” but who chose which judges to nominate? I don’t know, but McGahn and Leo were at the center of it.
I suspect the Koch operation helped McGahn and Leo with the names, and Trump went along with their recommendations. Whether Trump knew they chose, or whether the Kochs, McGahn and Leo all played Trump like a chump, is anybody’s guess.
They even fiddled with the “Federalist Society list” along the way, to get Brett Kavanaugh on it, perhaps to help encourage Justice Kennedy’s retirement.
Kennedy liked Brett, who’d been his law clerk. If there’d been a real Federalist Society list, and someone was chosen who wasn’t on the original list, there’d have been outrage from the billionaires.
But if the deal all along was that the Kochs got to use Leo and McGahn to pick Trump’s justices for him, who would care?
All the parties to the original deal were in on the switch — a voluntary contractual amendment, if you will — so there was no complaint about it. (Nor, presumably, any corporate action by the Federalist Society about a change to its supposed list.)
With the deal now done, with the three supposed “Trump justices” perched safely on the Court, House of Koch has again declared political war against House of Trump, spending millions against him and threatening to spend more. So much for Trump and the Art of the Deal.
And so much for loyalty of the “Trump justices” being to Trump. In this scenario, Trump was the chump, not the decider.
For a final tell, look at whether Koch-funded front groups file amicus briefs when the Trump cases come up, and what the briefs say.
The best predictor of this Captured Court’s rulings is what the flotillas of billionaire-funded front groups tell the justices to do in their amicus briefs. Silence from them (or even attacks on Trump by them) will be deafening.
• • •
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757910192262615044.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
February 9, 2024
Moments ago, Judge Cannon just made a very dangerous ruling and we cannot let it slip under the radar.
I am sure Jack Smith’s team is working feverishly on a response right now.
Judge Cannon just ordered that by tomorrow February 10, Jack Smith provide Trump with information about the death threats against a confidential witness in the Mar-A-Lago document case which Cannon previously allowed Jack Smith to file ex parte (meaning Trump can’t see it) and under seal (meaning the public can’t see it) as part of his motion for reconsideration where Cannon applied a wrong legal standard and where she ordered dozens of confidential witnesses and their statements in the case be made public.
Here is the sequence of events:
February 6 - Cannon makes a ruling to make the names of confidential witnesses and confidential info public (doc 283)
-February 7 Wednesday Jack Smith makes a filing (doc 289) saying we are going to file a motion for reconsideration of your ruling about making confidential witnesses public and to file that motion for reconsideration we want to show you an exhibit that shows the types of death threats against witnesses but since there is an ON GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION in the threats we CAN ONLY show it you as the judge and not Defendant (they may be the culprit) so we need to file it EX PARTE (only to the you the judge and not Trump) and under seal (NOT PUBLIC)
-Feb 8 Thursday (doc 293) Cannon says Jack Smith can file the document ex parte and under seal as part of your motion for reconsideration of my prior order (doc 283).
-Feb 8 Thursday (doc 294) Jack Smith files his motion for reconsideration as he said he would and filed that exhibit that shows the threats to witnesses as doc 296.
-Feb 9, moments ago, Cannon orders Jack Smith to turn over that ex parte and under seal document to Trump by February 10, effectively imperiling the safety of witness and intentionally compromising the DOJ investigation!
***
Get her outta there.
Loose Cannon just ordered Smith turn over death threats info to tsf
https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1756086001708208333?t=h16hCy22TsG3l6jrWiTMSA&s=19Moments ago, Judge Cannon just made a very dangerous ruling and we cannot let it slip under the radar.
I am sure Jack Smith’s team is working feverishly on a response right now.
Judge Cannon just ordered that by tomorrow February 10, Jack Smith provide Trump with information about the death threats against a confidential witness in the Mar-A-Lago document case which Cannon previously allowed Jack Smith to file ex parte (meaning Trump can’t see it) and under seal (meaning the public can’t see it) as part of his motion for reconsideration where Cannon applied a wrong legal standard and where she ordered dozens of confidential witnesses and their statements in the case be made public.
Here is the sequence of events:
February 6 - Cannon makes a ruling to make the names of confidential witnesses and confidential info public (doc 283)
-February 7 Wednesday Jack Smith makes a filing (doc 289) saying we are going to file a motion for reconsideration of your ruling about making confidential witnesses public and to file that motion for reconsideration we want to show you an exhibit that shows the types of death threats against witnesses but since there is an ON GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION in the threats we CAN ONLY show it you as the judge and not Defendant (they may be the culprit) so we need to file it EX PARTE (only to the you the judge and not Trump) and under seal (NOT PUBLIC)
-Feb 8 Thursday (doc 293) Cannon says Jack Smith can file the document ex parte and under seal as part of your motion for reconsideration of my prior order (doc 283).
-Feb 8 Thursday (doc 294) Jack Smith files his motion for reconsideration as he said he would and filed that exhibit that shows the threats to witnesses as doc 296.
-Feb 9, moments ago, Cannon orders Jack Smith to turn over that ex parte and under seal document to Trump by February 10, effectively imperiling the safety of witness and intentionally compromising the DOJ investigation!
***
Get her outta there.
February 9, 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/feb/09/leonard-leo-federalist-society-trump-ballot-supreme-court
And here I thought SCOTUS wanted the Koch's candidate Nikki Haley. This is bad.
Revealed: rightwinger Leonard Leo linked to efforts to keep Trump on ballot
...snip...
In this instance, Accountable.US found ties between Leo and the following groups or their lawyers that filed amicus briefs in the 14th amendment case: Citizens United, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Claremont Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, Jones Day, Wyoming’s secretary of state Chuck Gray and America’s Future.
Citizens United, a conservative group whose name is synonymous with the 2010 supreme court ruling that allows unlimited political spending by outside groups and corporations, filed a brief alongside Steven Calabresi, Leo’s fellow co-chair of the Federalist Society. Other lawyers tied to the society are signed on to the group’s brief as well.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s brief is co-filed with a man who has been featured in more than 100 Federalist Society events, and the group has received funding from groups tied to Leo. The Claremont Institute has also received funds from groups tied to Leo’s funding network, and the brief’s author wrote a book that includes a quote from Leo on the back cover and featured in society events.
Leo has complimented the chairman of the Landmark Legal Foundation as a “great patriot” and “our old Federalist Society stalwart”. The Judicial Watch president is also president of the Council for National Policy, which Leo has reportedly been involved with. Jones Day, a conservative law firm whose attorneys authored an amicus brief for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has given money to the Federalist Society, and the firm is where Leo, Trump and others met to come up with a list of supreme court candidates.
In this instance, Accountable.US found ties between Leo and the following groups or their lawyers that filed amicus briefs in the 14th amendment case: Citizens United, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Claremont Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, Jones Day, Wyoming’s secretary of state Chuck Gray and America’s Future.
Citizens United, a conservative group whose name is synonymous with the 2010 supreme court ruling that allows unlimited political spending by outside groups and corporations, filed a brief alongside Steven Calabresi, Leo’s fellow co-chair of the Federalist Society. Other lawyers tied to the society are signed on to the group’s brief as well.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s brief is co-filed with a man who has been featured in more than 100 Federalist Society events, and the group has received funding from groups tied to Leo. The Claremont Institute has also received funds from groups tied to Leo’s funding network, and the brief’s author wrote a book that includes a quote from Leo on the back cover and featured in society events.
Leo has complimented the chairman of the Landmark Legal Foundation as a “great patriot” and “our old Federalist Society stalwart”. The Judicial Watch president is also president of the Council for National Policy, which Leo has reportedly been involved with. Jones Day, a conservative law firm whose attorneys authored an amicus brief for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has given money to the Federalist Society, and the firm is where Leo, Trump and others met to come up with a list of supreme court candidates.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/feb/09/leonard-leo-federalist-society-trump-ballot-supreme-court
And here I thought SCOTUS wanted the Koch's candidate Nikki Haley. This is bad.
January 19, 2024
It appears that the DC Circuit Court of appeals is weighing some pretty serious stuff considering it's been over a week and we don't have a decision on absolute presidential immunity and double jeopardy appeals from donald trump in the DC case brought against him by Jack Smith. Granted, ten days is NOT a long time in the court world, but given the urgency of this case, it sure seems like an eternity. So what could they be weighing if the case is so straightforward?
This is just my two cents, but perhaps it's the question of jurisdiction.
As you know by now (if you listen to the Jack podcast or follow me fairly closely), a court has to have jurisdiction first before it can rule on the merits of a case. There's kind of like an order of operations to it. The parties bringing the case must have standing to do so, then the court must have jurisdiction to hear the case, and then they can rule on the merits. There's other stuff in there but those are the biggies.
In trump's appeal for absolute immunity and double jeopardy, the three-judge panel in this case had a lot of questions about jurisdiction for both sides. Neither the DoJ nor team trump were arguing that the court does NOT have jurisdiction in this case, and both wanted the court to decide on the merits. But the judges didn't seem so sure.
More...
Mueller she wrote: What's taking the DC Circuit so long
https://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote/2bBIfcWKFzeOaY5WbULjN0p3HENIt appears that the DC Circuit Court of appeals is weighing some pretty serious stuff considering it's been over a week and we don't have a decision on absolute presidential immunity and double jeopardy appeals from donald trump in the DC case brought against him by Jack Smith. Granted, ten days is NOT a long time in the court world, but given the urgency of this case, it sure seems like an eternity. So what could they be weighing if the case is so straightforward?
This is just my two cents, but perhaps it's the question of jurisdiction.
As you know by now (if you listen to the Jack podcast or follow me fairly closely), a court has to have jurisdiction first before it can rule on the merits of a case. There's kind of like an order of operations to it. The parties bringing the case must have standing to do so, then the court must have jurisdiction to hear the case, and then they can rule on the merits. There's other stuff in there but those are the biggies.
In trump's appeal for absolute immunity and double jeopardy, the three-judge panel in this case had a lot of questions about jurisdiction for both sides. Neither the DoJ nor team trump were arguing that the court does NOT have jurisdiction in this case, and both wanted the court to decide on the merits. But the judges didn't seem so sure.
More...
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Chicago and Milwaukee
Home country: USA
Current location: Alexandria, VA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 2,341
