Reread his point before that comment. The corrupt senate, deep staters of both parties, won't confirm anybody they can't control.
That's literally the reason why he didn't appoint loyalists as permanent people: the senate refused to confirm them. So if he wants somebody appointed he has to be somebody the senate will confirm.
Just look at his 3 SCOTUS picks. All of them cucked out on the Texas case. His AG, CIA, FBI etc. picks all are deepstate cucks. It looked like maybe Barr wouldn't be, but at this point nobody had confidence in him at all. He's delivered nothing.
The problem ultimately is we have too many establishment republicans. The cheating just confirms the system is heavily rigged, and that means any republicans who want to keep their position need to kneel to the establishment or be prepared for an epic fight with those who do... and all the democrats, media, big tech etc.
I agree all Rinos need to go, but think about SCOTUS. Steps:
They hear the case.
They agree
They rule in favor of the Prez.
In 4 years states sue for no reason and it all starts again.
If SCOTUS took it up and denied relief then it's game over everywhere. Texas was a longshot. It makes sense to me to say you fuckers that's against the Constitution EAD. GO PREZ.....
Second:
If WI. Rules against Trump today.
It Goes to SCOTUS
He wins. He has standing and WI. violated their state Constitution.
Thats what they're doing in PA., GA., AZ.,and WI.
Maybe they say fuck-all and thats it. Then we have a revolution to get behind boyz....
What is the process of deciding whether or not they'll hear the case? I've read about "rule of 4" and I can't imagine that there weren't 4 justices who didn't think the TX case had merit. Does Roberts have the final say as Chief Justice?
Ding ding ding. I’m glad someone has a brain. Additionally, to answer why he doesn’t just constantly shuffle loyalists in acting roles, it’s one of two reasons, or both.
The first is that the underlings at whatever department won’t follow their orders. If there is anything that should be apparent after the last four years, it’s that these departments are rife with obstruction, insubordination, and leakers. Just look at how Gina Haspel has been refusing to declassify the documents that Trump ordered. Say he fired her and put someone else in, the underlings would probably refuse to provide the documents, and obstruct everything the new acting director does. The swamp protects its own. One might respond that these people should be charged for their criminal behavior and arrested, but guess what, the justice system is broken too!
The second reason is that they could be holding leverage over Trump’s head to keep him from shuffling acting directors. Could be threats against family. Not violent threats necessarily, but legal threats. Step out of line and we start prosecuting all your family members, bog down their businesses in litigation, destroy them financially.
I know a couple of establishment republicans. Voters that is. Absolutely not communists. Tools for the communists? Sure, but mostly it's that they buy into the narrative. They have conservative viewpoints in principle, however, that's a lens they use to view the disinformation of the MSM.
It's like the old trash-in, trash-out principle: establishment republicans take misinformation (they don't accept its misinformation and think it's true) and then take a conservative stance based on that misinformation.
There is a reason we call fake news the enemy of the people. These establishment republicans are the right wing of the deepstate bubble. I'm betting most of them don't actually think they are supporting the rise of communism. Even the elected ones are just plain old swamp, getting rich off the taxpayer dime, and don't want Trump to end their gravy train, or worse, hold them accountable.
They might not have cucked out on the Texas suit. Paragraphs 30-32 of "United States v. Throckmorton" decision specifically states that district attorneys don't have legal standing in certain types of cases, only the AG does. The merits of the case can be presented to the court, which will accept the case, if brought by an AG. Trump should fire Barr, put Rudy G. in place for 30 days---long enough to file and argue prior to Inauguration Day, without a confirmation---and SCOTUS would be upholding legal precedent by accepting the suit.
I'd rather you just come out and say it because I have no idea what you're getting at.
Reread his point before that comment. The corrupt senate, deep staters of both parties, won't confirm anybody they can't control.
That's literally the reason why he didn't appoint loyalists as permanent people: the senate refused to confirm them. So if he wants somebody appointed he has to be somebody the senate will confirm.
Just look at his 3 SCOTUS picks. All of them cucked out on the Texas case. His AG, CIA, FBI etc. picks all are deepstate cucks. It looked like maybe Barr wouldn't be, but at this point nobody had confidence in him at all. He's delivered nothing.
The problem ultimately is we have too many establishment republicans. The cheating just confirms the system is heavily rigged, and that means any republicans who want to keep their position need to kneel to the establishment or be prepared for an epic fight with those who do... and all the democrats, media, big tech etc.
I agree all Rinos need to go, but think about SCOTUS. Steps: They hear the case. They agree They rule in favor of the Prez. In 4 years states sue for no reason and it all starts again.
If SCOTUS took it up and denied relief then it's game over everywhere. Texas was a longshot. It makes sense to me to say you fuckers that's against the Constitution EAD. GO PREZ.....
Second: If WI. Rules against Trump today. It Goes to SCOTUS He wins. He has standing and WI. violated their state Constitution.
Thats what they're doing in PA., GA., AZ.,and WI.
Maybe they say fuck-all and thats it. Then we have a revolution to get behind boyz....
What is the process of deciding whether or not they'll hear the case? I've read about "rule of 4" and I can't imagine that there weren't 4 justices who didn't think the TX case had merit. Does Roberts have the final say as Chief Justice?
Ding ding ding. I’m glad someone has a brain. Additionally, to answer why he doesn’t just constantly shuffle loyalists in acting roles, it’s one of two reasons, or both.
The first is that the underlings at whatever department won’t follow their orders. If there is anything that should be apparent after the last four years, it’s that these departments are rife with obstruction, insubordination, and leakers. Just look at how Gina Haspel has been refusing to declassify the documents that Trump ordered. Say he fired her and put someone else in, the underlings would probably refuse to provide the documents, and obstruct everything the new acting director does. The swamp protects its own. One might respond that these people should be charged for their criminal behavior and arrested, but guess what, the justice system is broken too!
The second reason is that they could be holding leverage over Trump’s head to keep him from shuffling acting directors. Could be threats against family. Not violent threats necessarily, but legal threats. Step out of line and we start prosecuting all your family members, bog down their businesses in litigation, destroy them financially.
Funny way to spell filthy commies.
I know a couple of establishment republicans. Voters that is. Absolutely not communists. Tools for the communists? Sure, but mostly it's that they buy into the narrative. They have conservative viewpoints in principle, however, that's a lens they use to view the disinformation of the MSM.
It's like the old trash-in, trash-out principle: establishment republicans take misinformation (they don't accept its misinformation and think it's true) and then take a conservative stance based on that misinformation.
There is a reason we call fake news the enemy of the people. These establishment republicans are the right wing of the deepstate bubble. I'm betting most of them don't actually think they are supporting the rise of communism. Even the elected ones are just plain old swamp, getting rich off the taxpayer dime, and don't want Trump to end their gravy train, or worse, hold them accountable.
Thanks for explaining, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
They might not have cucked out on the Texas suit. Paragraphs 30-32 of "United States v. Throckmorton" decision specifically states that district attorneys don't have legal standing in certain types of cases, only the AG does. The merits of the case can be presented to the court, which will accept the case, if brought by an AG. Trump should fire Barr, put Rudy G. in place for 30 days---long enough to file and argue prior to Inauguration Day, without a confirmation---and SCOTUS would be upholding legal precedent by accepting the suit.