Update on Trump Legal Cases

[flockofseagulls104]

See, I straight up see the "they do the work we don't want to" as pretty close to being in favor of slavery. I mean, you gotta figure the southerners were wringing their hands at the end of the Civil War over how the "dirty" work would get done without slaves.

No, illegal immigrants do a lot of work that is either physically demanding or involves bad working conditions (like chicken processing plants). They do get paid and in some cases more than for other types of unskilled labor. They are free to leave at any time and their employers can't beat and rape them the way slaves were frequently treated. Not slavery; nothing close.

LOL! NOOOOO THEY'RE NOT SLAVES!!!!

That is your defense of the catastrophe happening at the southern border? The left and the uniparty ignores and gives the finger to any kind of immigration system. They stifle and attack any attempt to stop the hordes of people that want to get into this country without any documentation. They ignore the fact that criminals, cartels, terrorists, human traffickers, other countries that wish us harm and are taking advantage of this. And it comes down to you that 'Well, they're not really slaves!'

The ugly fact is that the only glimmer of hope to fix this that I can see is to get someone who actually wants to fix this mess into authority over it. The only person that fits that bill is Trump. Sorry. That is the truth.

[earendel]

See, I straight up see the "they do the work we don't want to" as pretty close to being in favor of slavery. I mean, you gotta figure the southerners were wringing their hands at the end of the Civil War over how the "dirty" work would get done without slaves.

You may see it that way but I don't. Under a more open immigration system, those coming to America and doing the scutwork would be paid openly, rather than under the table, wouldn't have to worry about raids from Immigration, etc. It's the current system that leads to the abuses.

[earendel]

I've tried several times to reply to this post, but keep getting a server error. So I'm going to try to respond in sections to see if that fixes the problem.

They included articles, and later amendments, that to one degree or another controlled how we live our lives.

That is one area that is completely 'misinterpreted'. The Constitution was not written, and was never meant to restrict in any way the freedom and rights of individuals. Any articles and/or amendments are written to restrict the powers of the GOVERNMENT, not the people. And that is what is constantly being ignored by the left in this country. They do not recognize or they ignore the Constitutional restrictions on THEIR power.

The Constitution was written to balance the rights of the people with the power of the government. Otherwise there would be anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. For instance, any person should have the right to run for office. But the Constitution says that there are minimum ages for Congress and the presidency.

[earendel]

I don't see it as a problem because it's those "illegal" immigrants who do the work that Americans don't want to do, such as fruit and vegetable picking, working in slaughterhouses, and even working in fast-food restaurants. As I have said before, they pay into the Social Security system but won't be able to get any back, which means that I can continue to draw mine.

Which is exactly my point. If what you say is the case, why is the law not changed so the people you mentioned are 'legal'? I would have no problem with that. But the current administration is flagrantly ignoring and implicitly and many times explicitly advocating lawlessness on the border.

The law hasn't been changed for purely political reasons. The Republicans want to use the border as a club to beat the Biden administration over the head, so to speak. One legislator was even reported as saying that he wouldn't lift a finger to help the Biden administration. The numbers reported for immigrants seized by the Border Patrol in December makes it hard for me to believe that the administration is "flagrantly ignoring" the situation.

But you are OK with it. What about the people who are NOT OK with it? Is it OK to just dismiss us as white supremacists, racists, Ultra MAGA extremists and whatever else they make up?

I have never dismissed you or anyone as "white supremacists, racists, Ultra MAGA extremists" or any of the other sobriquets you've applied to your signature. I believe you sincerely believe that your viewpoint is what is best for America. What I don't like about your posts is that you don't believe that others' viewpoints might be what is best.

[earendel]

And meanwhile, mixed in with that group of people who you feel are OK to let in illegally are many 'not so fine' people that wish harm to this country and the people in it, and bring in sex slaves, unaccompanied children, drugs that kill millions of our citizens and many other detriments.

Regarding the "not so fine people", I'm sure there are some bad actors but I doubt the number is very large. If we had a egal system, screening everyone, those bad actors would be taken out. Under a more open immigration system there would be no need for coyotes to smuggle people into the country (at the cost of lives in some cases). Drugs? May I remind you that most illegal drugs are brought into this country by American citizens through legal border checkpoints. And if the system were designed to screen everyone, those trying to bring in illegal drugs would be caught. I get that our immigration system is supposed to be for the well-being of our country. I happen to think that more immigrants, screened properly, add to the well-being of our country.

[earendel]

See, I straight up see the "they do the work we don't want to" as pretty close to being in favor of slavery. I mean, you gotta figure the southerners were wringing their hands at the end of the Civil War over how the "dirty" work would get done without slaves.

You may see it that way but I don't. Under a more open immigration system, those coming to America and doing the scutwork would be paid openly, rather than under the table, wouldn't have to worry about raids from Immigration, etc. It's the current system that leads to the abuses.

I refer you to the Bracero Program, established in WW2 and terminated in 1964. It was a program for bringing Mexican men into the country to work in agriculture, the railroads, and other areas, freeing up American men for military service. The program had some abuses, but on the whole it could serve as a model for the current situation.

[tlynn78]

See, I straight up see the "they do the work we don't want to" as pretty close to being in favor of slavery. I mean, you gotta figure the southerners were wringing their hands at the end of the Civil War over how the "dirty" work would get done without slaves.

You may see it that way but I don't. Under a more open immigration system, those coming to America and doing the scutwork would be paid openly, rather than under the table, wouldn't have to worry about raids from Immigration, etc. It's the current system that leads to the abuses.

"Let's import downtrodden individuals to do our skutwork, and feel superior about making it 'legal.'

[flockofseagulls104]

And meanwhile, mixed in with that group of people who you feel are OK to let in illegally are many 'not so fine' people that wish harm to this country and the people in it, and bring in sex slaves, unaccompanied children, drugs that kill millions of our citizens and many other detriments.

Regarding the "not so fine people", I'm sure there are some bad actors but I doubt the number is very large. If we had a egal system, screening everyone, those bad actors would be taken out. Under a more open immigration system there would be no need for coyotes to smuggle people into the country (at the cost of lives in some cases). Drugs? May I remind you that most illegal drugs are brought into this country by American citizens through legal border checkpoints. And if the system were designed to screen everyone, those trying to bring in illegal drugs would be caught. I get that our immigration system is supposed to be for the well-being of our country. I happen to think that more immigrants, screened properly, add to the well-being of our country.

As far as I can see, you are agreeing with me that we should update our legal immigration system to take care of your concerns but you are just going along with the complete lawlessness of the current situation by accepting all the lies that the media, Biden, Mayorkis and swamp conglomerate come up with to keep it ongoing. You are supporting the complete breakdown of a legal immigration system, ear. It is not the republicans vs the democrats, ear. It's the uniparty vs we the people.

How many illegal immigrants do we need to do the skut jobs, ear? Is there a number? Have we reached it yet? Does anyone even know how many there are?

You doubt the number of evil people entering this country is very large? What do you base that opinion on? With the current situation, how can ANYONE even know? Do you even recall 9/11? Just a few people entering this country with no scrutiny caused that. And now, it is not just terrorism. Tell me how many Chinese operatives may have come here through the southern border. Do you know? Does anyone know? But I have to be content that YOU don't think the number is very large. C'mon ear.

There is an effort by We the People and the few legislators that actually represent us to refuse to fund the government until the border is closed. It most likely won't happen. But it should.

[silverscreenselect]

Donald Trump filed a motion today in his Georgia racketeering case to have the charges against him dismissed because of presidential immunity. This motion is similar to the one filed in Jack Smith's DC case, which is scheduled for oral arguments tomorrow.

[earendel]

See, I straight up see the "they do the work we don't want to" as pretty close to being in favor of slavery. I mean, you gotta figure the southerners were wringing their hands at the end of the Civil War over how the "dirty" work would get done without slaves.

You may see it that way but I don't. Under a more open immigration system, those coming to America and doing the scutwork would be paid openly, rather than under the table, wouldn't have to worry about raids from Immigration, etc. It's the current system that leads to the abuses.

"Let's import downtrodden individuals to do our skutwork, and feel superior about making it 'legal.'

What's your alternative, then? Should the work not get done? Shall we dragoon American citizens into doing it?

[earendel]

As far as I can see, you are agreeing with me that we should update our legal immigration system to take care of your concerns but you are just going along with the complete lawlessness of the current situation by accepting all the lies that the media, Biden, Mayorkis and swamp conglomerate come up with to keep it ongoing. You are supporting the complete breakdown of a legal immigration system, ear. It is not the republicans vs the democrats, ear. It's the uniparty vs we the people.

Yes, I do agree that the immigration system needs updating. I suppose the difference is in what we do under the present circumstances.

How many illegal immigrants do we need to do the skut jobs, ear? Is there a number? Have we reached it yet? Does anyone even know how many there are?

The economy added approximately 250,000 jobs in December. There are more than enough jobs to go around.

You doubt the number of evil people entering this country is very large? What do you base that opinion on? With the current situation, how can ANYONE even know? Do you even recall 9/11? Just a few people entering this country with no scrutiny caused that. And now, it is not just terrorism. Tell me how many Chinese operatives may have come here through the southern border. Do you know? Does anyone know? But I have to be content that YOU don't think the number is very large. C'mon ear.

The 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally. As to "Chinese operatives", do YOU know how many? Of course not.

There is an effort by We the People and the few legislators that actually represent us to refuse to fund the government until the border is closed. It most likely won't happen. But it should.

Oh, yes, let's shut everything down just to appease a few. That will do so much to make things better.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, I do agree that the immigration system needs updating. I suppose the difference is in what we do under the present circumstances.

Apparently, our differences are that you prefer that we ignore laws and do whatever the hell we want to do. I happen to think we should come to an agreement as to what we need to do and legislate to that end.
You seem to think the crisis is that we don't have enough people who will do the work. I believe the crisis the complete lack of control over our border. The work will get done one way or another. It always has and always will. We don't have to make a joke of our immigration system and suffer all kinds of unintended consequences so we can have cheap labor who will work in dangerous environments (like slaves).

The economy added approximately 250,000 jobs in December. There are more than enough jobs to go around.

Oh really? I thought you had to have a green card to work in this country. You OK with ignoring that law too?

The 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally. As to "Chinese operatives", do YOU know how many? Of course not.

Approximately this many

Oh, yes, let's shut everything down just to appease a few. That will do so much to make things better.

Oh yes, let's keep things going the way they always have without anything being fixed.
The essential things will go on, but we don't want to inconvenience the non-essential people in Washington DC.
Maybe we won't have the money to spend on prosecuting Trump. Wouldn't that be a catastrophe?
We should try it. maybe shutting down the government will prove to be an improvement.

[tlynn78]

You may see it that way but I don't. Under a more open immigration system, those coming to America and doing the scutwork would be paid openly, rather than under the table, wouldn't have to worry about raids from Immigration, etc. It's the current system that leads to the abuses.

"Let's import downtrodden individuals to do our skutwork, and feel superior about making it 'legal.'

What's your alternative, then? Should the work not get done? Shall we dragoon American citizens into doing it?

Are you actually listening to yourself? The meat processors, etc, would have to pay better wages if they couldn't take advantage of (nearly) slave labor. But then y'all would have to pay more for your avocados, chicken and domestics, and we can't have that.

[flockofseagulls104]

The 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally.

Ear, this one really brings you down past the trollboy level into Bob Juch territory. Even close to Biden and Harris level of stupidity.

If the terrorists enter illegally, they are what? safer?

For some reason, I keep thinking you still have an operating brain. Give it some exercise.

[flockofseagulls104]

And for trollboy to chew on and post his ubiquitous excuses.

But as we all know, only Trump does bad things, so this can't possibly be true.

Much more in the AJC I'm told, trollboy. I don't get that rag, but I have seen their story elsewhere. And it has surprised many of us Ultra-MAGA deplorable types that the AJC would even mention it. Is the tide starting to turn? Are they distancing themselves from her?

[flockofseagulls104]

I guess I still haven't said anything worth responding to, huh, doc? Or is it that you can respond to...

[silverscreenselect]

And for trollboy to chew on and post his ubiquitous excuses.

But as we all know, only Trump does bad things, so this can't possibly be true.

Much more in the AJC I'm told, trollboy. I don't get that rag, but I have seen their story elsewhere. And it has surprised many of us Ultra-MAGA deplorable types that the AJC would even mention it. Is the tide starting to turn? Are they distancing themselves from her?

The attorney for Mike Roman, one of the other defendants in the Trump case, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, and disqualify DA Willis, her office and the special prosecutor in the case Nathan Wade. Willis hired Wade, a respected Atlanta attorney and part-time judge. He was paid $250 an hour with a monthly cap on hours, that supposedly came to over $500,000 over many months of work. I'd venture that Bob##### firm charges more than $250 an hour for its services. And that money would have gone to the firm, not Wade personally (although I'm sure he got a good chunk of it). Roman alleges that Willis and Wade had a romantic relationship when she hired him and that since then, they have gone on Caribbean cruises and trips to California wine country together, presumably paid for out of what Fulton County is paying Wade.

There is no documentation of these charges. Roman's attorney says: "Upon information and belief, and based on discussions with individuals with knowledge, Willis and Wade were romantically involved..." " undersigned counsel has learned that Willis and Wade have traveled personally together to such places as Napa Valley, California, Florida and the Caribbean..." "In addition, the district attorney and the special prosecutor have been seen in private together (in a personal relationship capacity) in and about the Atlanta area and believed to have co-habited in some form or fashion at a location that neither of them owned. Sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed Willis and Wade had an ongoing, personal and romantic relationship during the pendency of Wade’s divorce proceedings."

Some of the supposed proof for these allegations is contained in Wade's divorce file, which is sealed. However, Roman's attorney says she saw the record before it was sealed and obtained certain documents she wants to make public if and when the divorce case is unsealed.


So, all this is based on claims by unnamed individuals and sealed documents in a divorce case. And the only defendant who picked up this information was one of the bottom tier defendants. This fails the most obvious smell test. Fani Willis is a highly visible public official. If she went with her assistant on wine country vacations and Caribbean cruises, word would have been all over the place in Atlanta before now. Willis has already had to deal with rumors that she had an affair with a gang member. If these "sources" existed, why didn't they go first to Trump's attorneys and the other high-power defendants rather than a bottom-of-the-barrel defendant.

I'm willing to wait to see where this goes. Roman's attorney will have to back up her claims with more than "unnamed sources" for the motion to have any kind of chance.

[flockofseagulls104]

And for trollboy to chew on and post his ubiquitous excuses.

But as we all know, only Trump does bad things, so this can't possibly be true.

Much more in the AJC I'm told, trollboy. I don't get that rag, but I have seen their story elsewhere. And it has surprised many of us Ultra-MAGA deplorable types that the AJC would even mention it. Is the tide starting to turn? Are they distancing themselves from her?

The attorney for Mike Roman, one of the other defendants in the Trump case, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, and disqualify DA Willis, her office and the special prosecutor in the case Nathan Wade. Willis hired Wade, a respected Atlanta attorney and part-time judge. He was paid $250 an hour with a monthly cap on hours, that supposedly came to over $500,000 over many months of work. I'd venture that Bob##### firm charges more than $250 an hour for its services. And that money would have gone to the firm, not Wade personally (although I'm sure he got a good chunk of it). Roman alleges that Willis and Wade had a romantic relationship when she hired him and that since then, they have gone on Caribbean cruises and trips to California wine country together, presumably paid for out of what Fulton County is paying Wade.

There is no documentation of these charges. Roman's attorney says: "Upon information and belief, and based on discussions with individuals with knowledge, Willis and Wade were romantically involved..." " undersigned counsel has learned that Willis and Wade have traveled personally together to such places as Napa Valley, California, Florida and the Caribbean..." "In addition, the district attorney and the special prosecutor have been seen in private together (in a personal relationship capacity) in and about the Atlanta area and believed to have co-habited in some form or fashion at a location that neither of them owned. Sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed Willis and Wade had an ongoing, personal and romantic relationship during the pendency of Wade’s divorce proceedings."

Some of the supposed proof for these allegations is contained in Wade's divorce file, which is sealed. However, Roman's attorney says she saw the record before it was sealed and obtained certain documents she wants to make public if and when the divorce case is unsealed.


So, all this is based on claims by unnamed individuals and sealed documents in a divorce case. And the only defendant who picked up this information was one of the bottom tier defendants. This fails the most obvious smell test. Fani Willis is a highly visible public official. If she went with her assistant on wine country vacations and Caribbean cruises, word would have been all over the place in Atlanta before now. Willis has already had to deal with rumors that she had an affair with a gang member. If these "sources" existed, why didn't they go first to Trump's attorneys and the other high-power defendants rather than a bottom-of-the-barrel defendant.

I'm willing to wait to see where this goes. Roman's attorney will have to back up her claims with more than "unnamed sources" for the motion to have any kind of chance.

You seem to spend extraordinary time, effort and display astounding open-mindedness, tolerance and forgiveness when defending those that share your political views. For those who don't, well, they are without any doubt guilty of whatever they are accused of and more. Pretty easy worldview, I guess.

[earendel]

Apparently, our differences are that you prefer that we ignore laws and do whatever the hell we want to do. I happen to think we should come to an agreement as to what we need to do and legislate to that end.

Yes, we should come to an agreement. But the Freedom Caucus isn't interested in working with Democrats (or even others within the Republican party) to achieve one. They are insisting that it's their way or the government gets shut down.

You seem to think the crisis is that we don't have enough people who will do the work. I believe the crisis the complete lack of control over our border. The work will get done one way or another. It always has and always will. We don't have to make a joke of our immigration system and suffer all kinds of unintended consequences so we can have cheap labor who will work in dangerous environments (like slaves).

The crisis is people who are fleeing their homelands to escape violence, political persecution, poor living conditions, etc. The U.S. is quite capable of absorbing these individuals. Of course, the best way to deal with the crisis is to provide more funding for those countries, preventing the human rights abuses that cause the migration in the first place.

The economy added approximately 250,000 jobs in December. There are more than enough jobs to go around.

Oh really? I thought you had to have a green card to work in this country. You OK with ignoring that law too?

The point is that there are enough jobs to go around - immigrants aren't stealing jobs from Americans. But of course you know the green card law is already being ignored by companies that want workers (the meatpacking industry, for instance).

The 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally. As to "Chinese operatives", do YOU know how many? Of course not.

Approximately this many

That's the number of immigrants, not the number of operatives, which no one can determine. From the articles I read, the majority of those coming are fleeing because of religious discrimination, the loss of personal freedom, etc. Are there "operatives" among them? Probably. There are also probably "operatives" among legal immigrants as well.

Oh, yes, let's shut everything down just to appease a few. That will do so much to make things better.

Oh yes, let's keep things going the way they always have without anything being fixed.
The essential things will go on, but we don't want to inconvenience the non-essential people in Washington DC.
Maybe we won't have the money to spend on prosecuting Trump. Wouldn't that be a catastrophe?
We should try it. maybe shutting down the government will prove to be an improvement.

You know, I actually thought we could have a conversation without bringing Donald Trump into it. And I'm not going to take the bait on that. As for shutting everything down, I really don't think you believe that it would be an improvement. There has to be a way to find common ground without setting the house on fire around us (the nation). The problem is that some people have dug in their heels and refuse to even consider compromise.

[earendel]

"Let's import downtrodden individuals to do our skutwork, and feel superior about making it 'legal.'

What's your alternative, then? Should the work not get done? Shall we dragoon American citizens into doing it?

Are you actually listening to yourself? The meat processors, etc, would have to pay better wages if they couldn't take advantage of (nearly) slave labor. But then y'all would have to pay more for your avocados, chicken and domestics, and we can't have that.

I don't know who "y'all" are, but I don't have any issue with paying more if workers are getting paid better wages. But it's more than that; it's better working conditions. And don't get me started about avocados.

[earendel]

The 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally.

Ear, this one really brings you down past the trollboy level into Bob Juch territory. Even close to Biden and Harris level of stupidity.

If the terrorists enter illegally, they are what? safer?

For some reason, I keep thinking you still have an operating brain. Give it some exercise.

My point is that you seem alarmed about terrorists entering illegally, when the worst terrorist attack was done by men who entered legally. And I had hoped we could keep this civil, rather than resort to name-calling.

[silverscreenselect]

You seem to spend extraordinary time, effort and display astounding open-mindedness, tolerance and forgiveness when defending those that share your political views. For those who don't, well, they are without any doubt guilty of whatever they are accused of and more. Pretty easy worldview, I guess.

The indictments of Trump, Roman, and the others, were delivered by a duly authorized grand jury and based on the sworn testimony of dozens of witnesses. The motion filed by Roman's attorney is based on, at best, unsworn hearsay from anonymous witnesses and unidentified documents in a sealed divorce case. The motion is signed by Roman's attorney but not verified or accompanied by an affidavit. That means that all she is certifying is that she read the motion and that it was not filed for purposes of delay. She's not swearing or certifying that any of the conversations she alleged actually took place. So, it's barroom gossip. Good for getting a few minutes of notoriety but not much else. I can guarantee you that Judge McAfee will demand some substantial sworn evidence of these allegations.

[Bob78164]

The Constitution was written to balance the rights of the people with the power of the government. Otherwise there would be anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. For instance, any person should have the right to run for office. But the Constitution says that there are minimum ages for Congress and the presidency.

The "funny" thing is that when Donny was falsely claiming that President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, no one (and certainly no Republicans) seemed to worry about whether throwing President Obama out of office would interfere with the rights of his voters. --Bob

[Bob78164]

"Let's import downtrodden individuals to do our skutwork, and feel superior about making it 'legal.'

What's your alternative, then? Should the work not get done? Shall we dragoon American citizens into doing it?

Are you actually listening to yourself? The meat processors, etc, would have to pay better wages if they couldn't take advantage of (nearly) slave labor. But then y'all would have to pay more for your avocados, chicken and domestics, and we can't have that.

The more likely result is that many of them shut down their domestic operations (or go broke trying to keep them open) and move somewhere where they can find enough labor at prices that work.

But you're showing an awful lot of solicitude for people whose actions say don't seem to think they're being exploited, at least compared to where they came from. If only you'd show that same solicitude for people like Kate Cox, or the women who will have to wait until they're literally dying to get the care they need. --Bob

[Bob78164]

I'd venture that Bob##### firm charges more than $250 an hour for its services.

That's about what we charge for our paralegals' time. We charge more than that for our least experienced attorneys. --Bob