MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The most likely thing to kill Donald Trump is his next BigMac.

He's a billionaire; he can cure obesity. :lol2:

He could, doesn't mean the will to do so is there though. *thinke*

[The Black Forrest]

Why do you hate the free market?

Slavery is not the free market.

There wasn’t a market for slaves?

[The Black Forrest]

He's a billionaire; he can cure obesity.

He could, doesn't mean the will to do so is there though. *thinke*

Ohhh. He has to be a billionaire to cure it. He is screwed.

[Imperial Joseon]

He's a billionaire; he can cure obesity.

He could, doesn't mean the will to do so is there though. *thinke*

Well, he already has a wife, so I guess that doesn't matter to him at all.

[Gormwood]

He could, doesn't mean the will to do so is there though. *thinke*

Well, he already has a wife, so I guess that doesn't matter to him at all.

He'll just get a fresh one when the current reaches the expiration date.

[Alien Space Bats]

Sanctuary cities and states can, that's literally the reason they exist, to stop entities like ICE from doing and deporting whoever they feel like.

Again, one of the main reason Trump and ICE hates them.

I think you misunderstand what sanctuary cities and States are.

A little Constitutional law might be called for here...

In 1842, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, a runaway slave case. It struck down a Pennsylvania law granting freedom to runaways (and thus aiming to prevent Southern bounty hunters from nabbing runaways from within its territory), but at the same time it affirmed the right of State and local law governments and law enforcement officials to refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of a Federal law (in this case, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793). IOW, thanks to the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Pennsylvania couldn't just nullify or overrule Federal law on a local basis; but thanks to Pennsylvania being its own political entity, the Federal government (or, as in this case, someone operating as its agent — that being in this particular matter the plaintiff, a bounty hunter by the name of Edward Prigg) could not compel Pennsylvania to cooperate with such efforts. Per the Wikipedia article cited above, this is known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine", and it essentially reflects the fact that States have the ultimate power, exercised on behalf of their residents, to decide how State resources (paid for with State taxpayer dollars) are and are not to be used.

So taking this forward to the present immigration argument, sanctuary cities and States are entirely within their rights to refuse to divert their law enforcement resources into efforts to assist the Federal government in its enforcement of Federal immigration law - and this is in fact what they do when they choose to declare themselves "sanctuaries": They forbid their law enforcement agencies and officials from cooperating with Federal law enforcement agencies and personnel on matters pertaining to immigration. They don't check a person's immigration status when that person comes into contact with them, they don't inform Federal immigration authorities when they have an undocumented person in their custody, they essentially just sit on their hands and tell the Feds to go stuff it when it comes to enforcing immigration law, just as the Northern States used to refuse to cooperate with U.S. Marshals or Southern bounty hunters back in the days before the Civil War w/re to matters pertaining to recovering runaway slaves. It's the same basic legal principle at work, and it creates the same basic exception for cities and States that would rather not be in the business of helping the Feds round up and deport persons who are here without the necessary legal documentation.

This is why I see efforts by Trump and his most ardent supporters to get rid of these "sanctuaries" as certain to fail. Whatever you may think about these cities' and States' decision not to help the Federal government enforce immigration law, they're the ones who are ultimately responsible for deciding how their own individual law enforcement resources ought to be used. For the Federal government to be able to come in and commandeer State and local resources for Federal purposes while leaving the burden of paying for those resources in State and local hands would be an utter violation of our entire approach to government (i.e., the one in which we actually have States possessed of their own independent legal authority and authorized to collect taxes and spend monies in response to their own perceived local needs — a.k.a "Federalism").

[Alien Space Bats]

Legal Immigration is legal immigration and illegal immigration is illegal immigration, and should not be tolerated, it is that easy to understand.

It's not that simple.

The reason sanctuary cities emerged in the first place is that local officials found themselves facing near-total non-cooperation from immigrant communities in virtually all matters of law enforcement. Witnesses to much more serious criminal activity than merely being here without the proper documentation (like, say, organized crime and gang violence) weren't willing to come forward with information and/or testimony if it was going to get them (or other members of their family, or their friends and neighbors) rounded up and deported by ICE. So local governments began to cut the Feds out of the loop w/re to information regarding who was and was not here legally, in order to create a safe environment under which such people could come forward and help the police deal with the kinds of serious matters everybody wanted the police to deal with.

And by and large, this has worked out to the benefit of these so-called "sanctuaries". For all the overheated rhetoric that Donald Trump and others spew out suggesting that sanctuary laws have left the public vulnerable to rampaging "illegals" who do nothing but rape and slaughter people indiscriminately, the cooperation of immigration communities in helping the police fight crime at all levels has helped bring down the overall crime rate in most if not all of these communities. It's impossible to compare crimes committed by people here illegally with crimes stopped by getting people who are here illegally to help the police with information and testimony, but most law enforcement authorities in these places (and here we're speaking of police chiefs and other senior members of the police hierarchy) come off in favor of continuing these "sanctuary" policies, citing the importance of having the support of the people they're protecting rather than facing stony silence everywhere. That leads me to believe that more lives have been saved than lost by such an approach, and that more crimes have been prevented than permitted by them as well.

[Alien Space Bats]

Trump is only granting clemency to these people to make his eventual clemency/pardon of Roger Stone appear less newsworthy.
Ole Trump, campaigned on "Drain the Swamp" but delivered "Appoint the Swamp" and now "Pardon the Swamp"

Actually, many of the people who got clemency did so because their families gave money to Trump's re-election campaign.

So he's gone from "Drain the Swamp" to "Sell Pardons to the Swamp Creatures".

Seriously, this guy has not only broken Warren G. Harding's record for having the most corrupt Administration ever; he's broken the record running away...

[Gormwood]

Trump is only granting clemency to these people to make his eventual clemency/pardon of Roger Stone appear less newsworthy.
Ole Trump, campaigned on "Drain the Swamp" but delivered "Appoint the Swamp" and now "Pardon the Swamp"

Actually, many of the people who got clemency did so because their families gave money to Trump's re-election campaign.

So he's gone from "Drain the Swamp" to "Sell Pardons to the Swamp Creatures".

Seriously, this guy has not only broken Warren G. Harding's record for having the most corrupt Administration ever; he's broken the record running away...

Nobody cheered Harding on when his administration's rampant corruption was exposed, either.

[Alien Space Bats]

Which is fine... if you want wages high to where consumers end up paying Whole Foods Market prices at Walmart for produce. And please tell me a vast majority of Murikans are willing to make that sacrifice.

I strongly recommend that people view Andrew Zimmern's new series "What's Eating America", and especially the first episode, "Who's Feeding America", which dealt with immigration and the food industry. It's two hours long, but it's worth it.

In the segment where Zimmern visits a California farm near Salinas, he asks how much money the pickers make. He's told that they're paid on a piece-work basis, and that many earn $100-$150 a day, but the best ones can make $250 a day.

This is not to say that agricultural work is a plum job; it's not. It's hard work, and — as the company spokeswomen at that Salinas, CA farm indicates — it's anything but unskilled work. The pickers have to learn to work fast, sorting through the produce that they're picking to leave behind anything that a consumer might refuse to buy due to blemishes or faults. When Zimmern himself tries his hand at it, it's clear that he couldn't ever hope to keep up even if he wanted to (and for those of you who are wondering [Food Channel fans will already know this], Zimmern is an award-winning chef, rather than just some pampered reporter; as a restaurant veteran, he's been through more than his share of tough conditions through the course of his life).

Americans don't show up to work at agricultural jobs because those jobs don't pay enough to live on. They don't show up to work at agricultural jobs because those jobs are basically very, very hard work.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

[Alien Space Bats]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

<throws coffee mug across the room>

[Spirit of Hope]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

On the one hand I would like to see some actual evidence to back this up, on the other sounds exactly like how Trump operates.

[Farnhamia]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

On the one hand I would like to see some actual evidence to back this up, on the other sounds exactly like how Trump operates.

Why would Assange lie? My God, the man endured years in the Ecuadorian Embassy to protect the TRUTH!

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

On the one hand I would like to see some actual evidence to back this up, on the other sounds exactly like how Trump operates.

I wonder if Westminister Magistrates court could subpoena the Donald?

[Zurkerx]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

The White House said the claim is "a complete fabrication and a total lie".

Sure, just like almost every other claim made. It also seems former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is involved in this as well. More specifically, this stood out to me:

His barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, told the court there was evidence alleging that former US Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made the pardon offer.

Mr Rohrabacher visited the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017, where Assange was staying, he said.

Mr Fitzgerald said a statement from Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows "Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."

I would like to see this evidence as it would be damning. However, it's pretty clear at this point Trump can do whatever he wants without consequence.

[Farnhamia]

On the one hand I would like to see some actual evidence to back this up, on the other sounds exactly like how Trump operates.

I wonder if Westminister Magistrates court could subpoena the Donald?

I'm sure it's occurred to them but ... maybe throw in a free golf weekend?

[Genivaria]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

The White House said the claim is "a complete fabrication and a total lie".

Sure, just like almost every other claim made. It also seems former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is involved in this as well. More specifically, this stood out to me:

His barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, told the court there was evidence alleging that former US Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made the pardon offer.

Mr Rohrabacher visited the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017, where Assange was staying, he said.

Mr Fitzgerald said a statement from Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows "Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."

I would like to see this evidence as it would be damning. However, it's pretty clear at this point Trump can do whatever he wants without consequence.

Not just Trump, but Republicans in general.
I honestly do think that Trump refusing to leave the White House after losing reelection is a very real possibility.

[Farnhamia]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51566470

Assange claims Trump offered him pardon in return for denying Russia was involved with the email leaks during the campaign.

The White House said the claim is "a complete fabrication and a total lie".

Sure, just like almost every other claim made. It also seems former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is involved in this as well. More specifically, this stood out to me:

His barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, told the court there was evidence alleging that former US Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made the pardon offer.

Mr Rohrabacher visited the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017, where Assange was staying, he said.

Mr Fitzgerald said a statement from Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows "Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."

I would like to see this evidence as it would be damning. However, it's pretty clear at this point Trump can do whatever he wants without consequence.

Ah, Congressman Rohrabacher. That explains it.

[Fartsniffage]

The White House said the claim is "a complete fabrication and a total lie".

Sure, just like almost every other claim made. It also seems former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is involved in this as well. More specifically, this stood out to me:

His barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, told the court there was evidence alleging that former US Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made the pardon offer.

Mr Rohrabacher visited the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017, where Assange was staying, he said.

Mr Fitzgerald said a statement from Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows "Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks."

I would like to see this evidence as it would be damning. However, it's pretty clear at this point Trump can do whatever he wants without consequence.

Ah, Congressman Rohrabacher. That explains it.

How does that explain it?

[The Emerald Legion]

Ah, Congressman Rohrabacher. That explains it.

How does that explain it?

They're well known to be pro-putin to the point that the FBI thought they were going to end up as an actual Russian asset.

[Aureumterra]

He could, doesn't mean the will to do so is there though. *thinke*

Ohhh. He has to be a billionaire to cure it. He is screwed.

Forbes estimates Trump’s worth 3.1 Billion

[Fartsniffage]

How does that explain it?

They're well known to be pro-putin to the point that the FBI thought they were going to end up as an actual Russian asset.

Ah. That makes sense.

[Valrifell]

How does that explain it?

They're well known to be pro-putin to the point that the FBI thought they were going to end up as an actual Russian asset.

Ain't it funny how things turn out?

[Aureumterra]

They're well known to be pro-putin to the point that the FBI thought they were going to end up as an actual Russian asset.

Ain't it funny how things turn out?

McCarthyism is great