@oralloy,
The crime (among others) would be conspiracy to commit a crime against the US.
June 9, 2016, a day that will live in infamy.
On that day Trump agreed that, if the russians could succeed in electing him, he would turn over all America's nukes to russia and would approve of, and assist with, their conquest of the entire European, Asian, and African continents.
As an immediate bonus, Trump got 23 stolen Clinton emails, and a promise that all future russian emissaries to the U.S. would stay in Trump Hotels.
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:The crime (among others) would be conspiracy to commit a crime against the US.
Collusion doesn't amount to conspiracy to commit a crime against the US.
Setting collusion aside, good luck finding evidence that Trump conspired to commit a crime against the US. The likelihood that he did so is pretty remote.
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
The crime (among others) would be conspiracy to commit a crime against the US.
It's a crime to commit a crime!? Who knew!?
@layman,
I assume that Revelette is referring to allegations of Russian computer hacking, which would be illegal.
Although it strikes me as an improbable leap that collusion would translate to conspiracy to help Russia with that hacking.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:I guess they( government officials)determine what those exceptions are. If those people do not like it, let them sue. In short, who cares? The law will be enforced until it is changed.
So the law verifies the exceptions?
Exactly that's what
the complaint is about: asking the administration to explain how it grants waivers under the ban — and to justify the gap between what the administration portrays as a clear and generous waiver process, and overwhelming anecdotal evidence that people who should be considered for waivers are getting flatly denied or held in administrative limbo.
@revelette1,
What's the problem? It's clear that under the applicable criteria there could never be a "worthy case."
Quote:The US State Department employees evaluating visa applications at embassies and consulates abroad were supposed to consider whether applicants met three criteria:
1. that they would suffer “undue hardship” if not allowed to come to the United States;
2. that letting them come wouldn’t hurt the US’ national security or public safety, and
3. that it would be in the “national interest” of the United States to admit them.
If an applicant met all three, the official text of the travel ban said that the consular officer was supposed to grant them a waiver.
@layman,
Devcades of actual real worrld expeiirienxe show single payer worldwide costs half as much as we pay. GMU is full of ****.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:Let's see some of that evidence.
The link is above.
coldjoint wrote: and tell me why it is overwhelming,
Even if you are a judge of the
District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco Division, I just copied/pasted and have besides that nothing to do with said complaint.
coldjoint wrote: and why our government has to agree
See above.
@revelette1,
Honesty. It's Giuliani's and Trump's personal motto. They are men of deep principle. The sort of humans Jesus hoped we would all become.
Quote:Trump administration says it’s time to stop punishment of anti-gay African countries
Mick Mulvaney said punishing homophobia is "religious persecution."
During the State Department’s Ministerial on International Religious Freedom last week, Mick Mulvaney — President Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget — suggested that the Trump administration would end the practice of punishing African countries for their laws that criminalize homosexuality.
“Our US taxpayer dollars are used to discourage Christian values in other democratic countries,” he said during his remarks to the conference. “It was stunning to me that my government under a previous administration would go to folks in sub-Saharan Africa and say, ‘We know that you have a law against abortion, but if you enforce that law, you’re not going to get any of our money. We know you have a law against gay marriage, but if you enforce that law, we’re not going to give you any money.’ That is a different type of religious persecution that I never expected to see.”
“I never expected to see that as an American Christian,” he added. “There are a lot of people in this government who just want to see things done differently.”
Mulvaney’s portrayal of punishing people over their marriage laws is either intentionally deceptive or unintentionally ignorant. It’s true that the Obama administration responded to homophobic laws across Africa by threatening to withhold aid to countries that enforced them, but that policy was never about laws not recognizing the right for same-sex couples to marry. It was a response to laws on the books in several dozen African countries that criminalize homosexuality itself — putting people in jail just because they were gay, or even just because they were suspected of being gay.
For example, Ugandan lawmakers for many years juggled legislation that would have increased the punishment for homosexuality to the death penalty. Many called it simply the “kill the gays” bill. Ultimately, they passed a law that instead offered life sentences as punishment, though the country’s highest court overturned it. Lawmakers, however, did not give up on the idea of passing another draconian law, but the threat from many other countries, including the U.S., to cut aid appears to have been a deterrent, although anti-gay persecution has continued in Uganda.
TP
This is the worst time in the US history. Freedom of religion does not mean forcing your religious beliefs on others by means of death or imprisonment.
Why are Republicans not running on tax cuts? Because the core of voters they need to come out in November have not been helped by these cuts. The ones who have befitted are the very wealthy class and Republicans do NOT want attention drawn to that.
So it's Witch Hunt, crooked Mueller, murderous colored people, drug mule immigrants, liberal media, etc.
Now here's one heck of a surprise
Quote:66% of Democratic women have so far won their races, or 70 out of 106 contests, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. By contrast, only 38% of GOP women have won open primaries this year, or 11 out of 29 races.
WSJ
Of course, who the hell wants legislators legislating if they are menstruating.
