I understand what you are saying.

I don't think you do.

At the same time I remember the Obama apology tour ...

Sorry, don't remember it.

This is something I feel needed to be said publicly.

What criticize foreign peers because they think different than you? You don't think that's arrogant, disrespectful, undiplomatic?

We can agree to disagree ...

Not a problem.

Apparently, calling out Western countries for their retreat from free speech and criminalizing disfavored speech all while bringing receipts is fascist.

Another rookie making a mistake. I take it you have never studied i.e. taken courses in diplomacy especially foreign diplomacy. It's a grand dance of respect. You should never criticize your foreign peer in public especially in their presence. You do that in private, vehemently and emphatically if necessary. Should the need arise to do it publicly you do it carefully, nuanced and respectful.

Buffoon and company are utterly incapable of any of that. Thus the foreign negative reactions seen today. Do it privately you get to have a public schmooze fest over your diplomatic accomplishments.

Excuse me. The kind feared in Shakespeare's scene.

... until they need one.

Then they want a really good one. The kind that can take down the Buffoon's stupid. The kind from Shakespeare's scene.

How many military divisions does the bar command? None? Anyway...

Strange that your response to the ABA commenting on legal issues, dead in the middle of their wheelhouse, is military divisions.

I bet you think the way to "improve the country is kill all the lawyers." Although that Shakespearean scene doesn't mean what you think it does.

Who has standing in this case?

What case? This is the ABA pointing out the effects of the Buffoon's stupid.

Btw, the ABA is not the "legal profession's U.S. governing body." It's basically a trade association. The only thing is governs is its members. I dropped mine in the nineties when I got tired of reading journal articles about dei issues instead of legal issues. Lawyers are governed by their state bar associations not the ABA.

Ohhh if only you all understood ...

Oh, if only you and whomever Dan Huff is understood that provision of the FRCP hasn't prevented a FDC from entering an injunction.

The Buffoon's appealed many injunctions against his stupid but I have never seen this argument raised, never. I'm thinking it's because it's stupid. But here we are.

Once upon a time I represented a seller (Australian) against a manufacturer (Houston). The seller's principal routinely traveled internationally with various tools and equipment. He was often questioned about those items by various customs officials. He admittedly paid small "gratuities" to such officials to get on down the road.

At trial I convinced the judge to exclude that evidence because in those circumstances it's just a fact of life in international business.

That said, I don't get where the Buffoon in going with this.

Complacent?

Or cowardly?

Or complicit?

It's because the Buffoon lacks class. In foreign affairs it's called diplomacy, the grand dance countries go through in their relations. Domestically it's called compromise, that person has a point.

The Buffoon can indulge neither. He has no class.

The Buffoon's "instructions" die with him. No doubt the country would retaliate but it wouldn't be because of his "instructions."

A case of the Buffoon's alligator mouth overloading his hummingbird a*s? We'll see.

#72

No s**t.

You people still haven't learned. The average person doesn't ...

Have a f*****g clue about how governance works. Congress appropriates money. It's distributed to agency's with delegated authority to spend the appropriation. Sometimes part of the appropriation is "abused."

That's not a reason to cancel the appropriation.

Simpleton's notwithstanding.

#63

A raging child slinging profanities. And you think that's whats up. No, thanks.

From what I understand, POTUS, has the authority to ...

To an extent, true. Statutory authority exists for the Buffoon to try to not spend, or at least express dissatisfaction with Congressional spending priorities, apportioned funds. Seems the statutes require the Buffoon to disclose certain specific information to Congress within x days - clock ticking.

~ Fox News pundit, Judge Napalitano, who sometimes expresses reasonable opinions.

Censoring the media.

You really should read the articles before p*****g in the wind. Rotating office space in the Pentagon is not censorship. As the article states: "The moves are largely symbolic as outlets are not losing access to Pentagon briefings, but are in keeping with the Trump administration's plans to mix the access of traditional news outlets with a cohort of non-traditional news outlets, including podcasters, bloggers and TikTokers."

I've disliked the Buffoon since before some of you knew he exists but pick your battles. This is nothing.

And look how much he's managed to do with such little support? Makes everyone that came before him seem ineffectual by comparison.

I'm not so sure. What has he actually done? By that I mean actual on the ground stuff instead of press releases and the general Buffoon chest thumping?

#73

The old "they look suspicious" evasion of the reasonable suspicion standard. Knocked out Arizona's? proof of citizenship law a few years ago. What's next?

Greg Palast again? You gotta be sh****g me.

This equestrian manure has been going on in Texas for decades. It's gone nowhere. Don't expect this to either.

When I left the employ of the Federal Govt, I didn't get to take it with me.

Me neither. Though I never understood why the Army gave me one. I actively worked against it. Probably because it was really low level "special weapons" guard NCOIC.

I'm not sure why anyone expects to.

These folks are high level. Some have expertise that is valuable to successors and colleges.

No. They said one branch can enforce.

As mentioned elsewhere 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump. This is an easy one.

You wanna cite some kinda source/reasoning for that ill advised prediction?

Gimme sumpin. Canudoit? Imguessinno!

I'd be careful with that argument. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction and can't be prosecuted, they are therefore a foreign combatant and subject to the War on Terror rules.

I am careful with what I write. Unlike persons who ignorantly conflate disparate legal subjects. Subject to jurisdiction deals with presence. "Foreign combatant" deals with war.