Chris Krebs never “crossed” our current president. What he did was to tell the truth about the 2020 election result. To the administration it appears that truth-telling counts as betrayal. This is where we are in our Orwellion epoch, a time when truth equals treason in the eyes of our nation’s governance. We should all be looking over our shoulders.
It may be “the highest-profile example of the Trump administration using the Justice Department to prosecute its political rivals”, but it still has quite a way to go to match the Biden Administration.
Do you have evidence that the Department of Justice was involved in the NYC case The People v Donald Trump? I haven't seen any, so I'm curious on your source. Also, what are your thoughts on whether prior presidents should be investigated/prosecuted for crimes? Do you believe generally that prior presidents should be essentially immune from those kinds of investigations?
I likely over spoke, as have little “evidence” per se, but there is the odd case of the DOJ higher-up resigning to take a demotion joining Bragg's team. I'm sure there was not further communications between he and his former associates. I suppose Bragg’s and James’ cases could just as easily be cases of a confluence of interest and coincidence in timing in the effort to get then former-President Trump.
As to my “thoughts on whether prior presidents should be investigated/prosecuted for crimes?” and “do I you believe generally that prior presidents should be essentially immune from those kinds of investigations?” The answer is I believe the SCOTUS got it right. That’s what impeachment is for, yet they left open the question of what is in the President’s legitimate scope of interests is left open. For instance, did Obama really want to scuttle Trump’ s Presidency by conspiring with the others, or was he merely duped by these others as “it just seemed right” to him? In the former case, yes prosecute. In the latter, no. Motives will be hard to prove.
Hmm, I understand the perspective that presidents need some level of immunity in order to do their jobs in the highest office in the land. I'm of the opinion that SCOTUS made the immunity rather too broad, though. The idea that a president could direct the military or certain officers/secretaries to do blatantly unconstitutional acts and be held immune for that direction causes me serious concern. I agree that presidential motivation matters, but as you said, motives are hard to prove.
We ought to be able to use more objective standards for holding any politician or political appointee accountable for criminal offenses. It seems to me that the use of grand juries and juries of peers are a much better method than general broad immunity.
I share your misgivings, but as so since much is "political" these days, we can easily imagine a scenario where a former President is tied up in court endlessly, which is not cheap, and can result in revenge by impoverishment. While we focus on Trump, lets recall Bush OK'd "enhanced interrogation", Obama droned an American citizen without due process, and Biden blatantly violated the Constitution in his eviction moratorium.
Add to that the obvious political prejudices with judges, DAs and jury pools in places like DC and NY, for example, and you could have a real mess.
Pardon me, but I loved reading this exchange between you two! You are clearly of different minds, but are graciously and respectfully discussing the differences with open minds and understanding. I applaud you for setting a great example that others who are online can use to help us get back to civil discourse. Thank you, kindly. 😊
Yes we do differ. I tend to view the "leaps" taken by Bush, Obama, and Biden to be at least as injurious as those of Trump. He, at least, is doing this all in the open. Cant say the same for numerous actions taken by each of his predecessors.
Getting revenge on political enemies is a chapter in the authoritarian playbook. It's also a keynote reason for many sandbox squabbles between toddlers. trump doesn't seem to have advanced much in emotional intelligence - his own seems to hover somewhere between toddler and teenager. His intellectual intelligence is no better. But his animal cunning is beyond compare.
Thanks for sharing that article. Here’s a clear breakdown of what it says:
🧭 Summary of the Article
Title: Border agents directed to stop deportations under Trump’s asylum ban, sources say
Author: Camilo Montoya-Galvez
Source: SmartNews A
🧵 Key Points
• Policy Shift: U.S. border agents have reportedly been instructed to stop deporting migrants under a specific Trump-era asylum ban.
• Legal Context: The ban in question likely refers to a rule that disqualified migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border illegally or failed to apply in a third country first.
• Operational Impact: The directive suggests that enforcement of this asylum ban has been paused or halted, at least in terms of deportations.
• Uncertainty: The article does not explicitly say whether the entire asylum process is paused. Instead, it focuses on the suspension of deportations tied to that particular ban.
🧩 What’s Not Clear
• Whether new asylum applications are being accepted or processed.
• Whether other deportation mechanisms are still active.
• If this is a temporary directive or part of a broader legal or policy reversal.
🔍 Interpretation
So to your question: Is the asylum process paused?
Based on this article alone, no—the asylum process itself is not paused. What’s paused is deportation under a specific ban that previously disqualified certain asylum seekers. That’s a narrow but important distinction.
Chris Krebs never “crossed” our current president. What he did was to tell the truth about the 2020 election result. To the administration it appears that truth-telling counts as betrayal. This is where we are in our Orwellion epoch, a time when truth equals treason in the eyes of our nation’s governance. We should all be looking over our shoulders.
The difference is that Trump is the enemy of the people.
It may be “the highest-profile example of the Trump administration using the Justice Department to prosecute its political rivals”, but it still has quite a way to go to match the Biden Administration.
How so? Just curious, not disagreeing.
Pick any of the Smith-lead investigations, or the antics in NYC that the Biden Admin conspired with.
Do you have evidence that the Department of Justice was involved in the NYC case The People v Donald Trump? I haven't seen any, so I'm curious on your source. Also, what are your thoughts on whether prior presidents should be investigated/prosecuted for crimes? Do you believe generally that prior presidents should be essentially immune from those kinds of investigations?
I likely over spoke, as have little “evidence” per se, but there is the odd case of the DOJ higher-up resigning to take a demotion joining Bragg's team. I'm sure there was not further communications between he and his former associates. I suppose Bragg’s and James’ cases could just as easily be cases of a confluence of interest and coincidence in timing in the effort to get then former-President Trump.
As to my “thoughts on whether prior presidents should be investigated/prosecuted for crimes?” and “do I you believe generally that prior presidents should be essentially immune from those kinds of investigations?” The answer is I believe the SCOTUS got it right. That’s what impeachment is for, yet they left open the question of what is in the President’s legitimate scope of interests is left open. For instance, did Obama really want to scuttle Trump’ s Presidency by conspiring with the others, or was he merely duped by these others as “it just seemed right” to him? In the former case, yes prosecute. In the latter, no. Motives will be hard to prove.
Hmm, I understand the perspective that presidents need some level of immunity in order to do their jobs in the highest office in the land. I'm of the opinion that SCOTUS made the immunity rather too broad, though. The idea that a president could direct the military or certain officers/secretaries to do blatantly unconstitutional acts and be held immune for that direction causes me serious concern. I agree that presidential motivation matters, but as you said, motives are hard to prove.
We ought to be able to use more objective standards for holding any politician or political appointee accountable for criminal offenses. It seems to me that the use of grand juries and juries of peers are a much better method than general broad immunity.
I share your misgivings, but as so since much is "political" these days, we can easily imagine a scenario where a former President is tied up in court endlessly, which is not cheap, and can result in revenge by impoverishment. While we focus on Trump, lets recall Bush OK'd "enhanced interrogation", Obama droned an American citizen without due process, and Biden blatantly violated the Constitution in his eviction moratorium.
Add to that the obvious political prejudices with judges, DAs and jury pools in places like DC and NY, for example, and you could have a real mess.
Pardon me, but I loved reading this exchange between you two! You are clearly of different minds, but are graciously and respectfully discussing the differences with open minds and understanding. I applaud you for setting a great example that others who are online can use to help us get back to civil discourse. Thank you, kindly. 😊
Yes we do differ. I tend to view the "leaps" taken by Bush, Obama, and Biden to be at least as injurious as those of Trump. He, at least, is doing this all in the open. Cant say the same for numerous actions taken by each of his predecessors.
Getting revenge on political enemies is a chapter in the authoritarian playbook. It's also a keynote reason for many sandbox squabbles between toddlers. trump doesn't seem to have advanced much in emotional intelligence - his own seems to hover somewhere between toddler and teenager. His intellectual intelligence is no better. But his animal cunning is beyond compare.
Oppose the Bloated Yam and you become an enemy of the state.
TERRIFYING LIST --
We could be very close to high power arrests. Some very bad people are going to be spending a lot of money on lawyers. The process is the punishment.
This is not related to today’s post. It is a question for you. Please explain this news article:
https://l.smartnews.com/p-5WMrGml2/mfkAyg
For example I cannot tell from this article if the asylum process is paused or not paused.
Thanks for sharing that article. Here’s a clear breakdown of what it says:
🧭 Summary of the Article
Title: Border agents directed to stop deportations under Trump’s asylum ban, sources say
Author: Camilo Montoya-Galvez
Source: SmartNews A
🧵 Key Points
• Policy Shift: U.S. border agents have reportedly been instructed to stop deporting migrants under a specific Trump-era asylum ban.
• Legal Context: The ban in question likely refers to a rule that disqualified migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border illegally or failed to apply in a third country first.
• Operational Impact: The directive suggests that enforcement of this asylum ban has been paused or halted, at least in terms of deportations.
• Uncertainty: The article does not explicitly say whether the entire asylum process is paused. Instead, it focuses on the suspension of deportations tied to that particular ban.
🧩 What’s Not Clear
• Whether new asylum applications are being accepted or processed.
• Whether other deportation mechanisms are still active.
• If this is a temporary directive or part of a broader legal or policy reversal.
🔍 Interpretation
So to your question: Is the asylum process paused?
Based on this article alone, no—the asylum process itself is not paused. What’s paused is deportation under a specific ban that previously disqualified certain asylum seekers. That’s a narrow but important distinction.
Thank you!