Why Trump Hasn't Challenged Judge Curiel in Fact

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday June 04, 2016 · 10:02 PM PDT

2016/06/04 · 22:02

160601-trump-curiel-mn-1130_27cbe2a864fffd0c78aefb18f60a06c9.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg — Why the Donald Will Never File Against Judge Curiel

While nothing can keep Donald Trump from making repulsive, ridiculous and indefensible claims in public, particularly when speaking about public characters, it is often interesting how he never follows up on his claims about what he will do. This is particularly true of his criticisms of District Court Judge Curiel over two years, where he has never filed a motion for recusal on various grounds. www.theatlantic.com/... Interested minds want to know: If Judge Curiel has so clearly acted irresponsibly why not seek his recusal with a motion?

Two reasons suggest themselves: (i) Mr. Trump knows that motion would be meritless, and could not benefit from its adjudication; or, (ii) significantly, his lawyers refuse to file it. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (www.law.cornell.edu/...) requires at least one attorney of record to sign every pleading, and that signature makes certain affirmative representations to the Court, in particular:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

A violation of these representations can result in sanctions, not only against the party on whose behalf the motion is filed, but also the attorney or law firm associated with the attorney who signed the pleadings.

While the Donald has been railing against the allegedly unfair treatment he has received from the alleged Mexican-ness of the Judge responsible for these cases, we can imagine how a firm might respond to his demand for recusal on racial or other frivolous grounds. It is probably more likely than not that his firm has refused, and will continue to refuse to do that, at least on the Donald’s grounds — because a sanctions for this might well cost a lawyer who signed the motion — and their large general practice law firm — or a ticket to practice law, something more valuable to them than the approval of the Donald.

Two years of whining, and no motion for recusal. We don’t know for sure, but we can guess that Rule 11 may have something to do with it.

Tit for Tat...

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 14, 2013 · 5:13 PM PST

2013/11/14 · 17:13

While it remains to be seen whether Senator Reid has the will or the votes to limit the GOP abuses of the filibuster, there seems a straightforward "solution," that requires no special majority, supermajority or such: tit for tat.

Since the House has adopted the Hastert Rule, precluding the Speaker from bringing a bill up for consideration without the consensus of his party caucus, the nation has been brought to its knees by Speaker Boehner's osbtruction, taking up for vote only ridiculous and partisan legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

While the Majority Leader of the Senate does not have the pure power of fiat accorded to the Speaker of the House, he is entitled to select the order of bills coming before the Senate. Why not simply use the "tit for tat" rule? There are two provisions:

1) until the Speaker abandons the Hastert rule in the House, the Senate shall not give priority for calendar to any legislation not approved by a majority of his caucus; and

2) after a Senator has placed a hold against appointments or voted against cloture more than 50 times in a two-year period, no legislation by that Senator, or with respect to which that Senator has co-sponsored (unless a majority of the majority leader's caucus gives lead to proceed) shall be given priority over ANY other legislation for the calendar.

Reid doesn't require anything but his own political will to do this. He only punishes those who are routinely abusing the legislative process (which is of course in their discretion to do), by asserting his own discretion.

Tit-for-tat. Why not?

Smirk Patrol

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday December 26, 2012 · 11:22 AM PST

2012/12/26 · 11:22

DC legislators had better not be smirking this week. Too many are suffering at their hands...

The nation is in crisis, and American families hold their breath, while Republican legislators vacation. American families should know whether they will need to find another few thousand dollars each in their already-strapped budgets, and they should know why this is so.

Of course, spending reductions this Christmas have already had their impact on seasonal businesses that rely on Christmas spending. Still, the damage being done, why persist with it?

America needs to see what their legislators are doing for the New Year instead of working on solving the problems they, themselves, created. It is my hope that everyone with a cellphone near a legislator who is wining, dining or just plain having fun this week captures and publishes the images of sloth and abuse.

Every smirk, every dinner, every high-value glass of wine needs to be recorded so American can see how they fiddled while the middle class burned.

Quest for the Silver Bullet

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday December 21, 2012 · 12:15 PM PST

2012/12/21 · 12:15

Wayne LaPierre calls for guns accompanied by police as the one and only possible solution to the tragedies of our times. In supporting his position, the NRA presents three assumptions: (i) armed defenders is the silver bullet; (ii) no other solution can avoid the harm; and (iii) that no solution other than one that is perfect is worthy of discussion, when fundamental rights are in play.

The three assumptions are dogs that don't hunt. They sound like more relaxed statements that may be salutary, but used in the manner La Pierre tends to do, they are false and dangerous pabulum that leads nowhere. Of course, since that is his goal at times like this, he can be expected to use that framing. The danger is that he funds the political fortune of a great number of policymakers, who ape the fallacious reasoning.

It is useful to consider his words, and to note that, at least this time, he proved too much. His own words point the way to a broader, more robust solution. More after the squiggly squiggle.

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 20, 2012 · 4:52 PM PST

2012/12/20 · 16:52

Much has been written in these letters, assailing the President as the Great Capitulator, both in his handling of last year's debt limit compromise and his most recent offer, allegedly throwing his very base under the bus. I am not so sure. The President may have made a great move by turning the Godfather on his head, and

Make the GOP an Offer They Can't Accept

Many would have the President stonewall, on the theory that hardball is the only way to play this game -- stick it to them until they capitulate. While storming out of a room is emotionally satisfying at one level, it may not be the best tactic in negotiations, even against supposedly hardball negotiators, particularly when you hold a strong hand with negotiating 'leverage.'

Indeed, for those of us who negotiate for a living, one textbook strategy, that of Fisher and Ury from Getting to Yes, is to calculate your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, estimate that of the opponent and plan accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Of course, things are quite complicated when negotiating tactics for public policy. Not only are issues such as the underlying public policy are involved, but also political "optics," political "capital" and actual power. Much depends on the consequences of doing nothing.

Where, as here, the goal is to be true to your oath of office, but also to control and consolidate power, I am quickly coming to the view that the President is playing a textbook game, and doing so masterfully. Deeper than the derisive 11th-dimensional chess moniker thrust upon him, it seems that he is probably doing precisely the right thing at the moment. Discussion why after the noodle.

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday October 04, 2012 · 11:30 AM PDT

2012/10/04 · 11:30

Nobody seems concerned about this language:

ROMNEY: What we do have right now is a setting where I'd like to bring money from overseas back to this country.
And, finally, Medicaid to states? I'm not quite sure where that came in, except this, which is, I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you're going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.

Maybe I'm just a little bit sensitive to this, but why does Mitt Romney think its ok to discuss poverty stricken Americans as someone else's problem?

Really, "your poor." I thought the idea was to ask other to let us make the poor OUR problem, as in "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to live free?" Now its, take care of "your poor."

Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday September 05, 2012 · 9:16 PM PDT

2012/09/05 · 21:16

Some of the most beautiful words I have ever heard uttered, from the pen of a true genius of the enlightenment:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor.

This reference, closing President Clinton's astonishing speech last night had many meanings, some of which may not have been apparent at first. It was his response to the Grand Old Party's perpetual abuse of the truth, and an important rebuttal. However, besides the "up-yours" aspect of that, it pointed out one of the most fundamental lessons the Founders handed to us, and a lesson with respect to which President Clinton taught us, no begged us, tonight to return.

More below the fold:

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 28, 2012 · 5:27 PM PDT

2012/08/28 · 17:27

Forgive my use of the double dative, but as I was reading the GOP platform, Cicero's "Cassius maxim" kept coming back. Cui bono? To whose benefit are these provisions? The banner headlines promises that this is for everyone, for the "American Dream." And yet, the fine print points elsewhere. Cicero suggested we look past the rhetoric, asking who benefits from the proposals. This wisdom seemed poignant today.

Since nobody seems committed to the truth, we should look at what is actually proposed, and simply ask, "Cui bono?" Put bluntly, if the benefit is ours, we should join. If not, we should run like the wind, regardless how beautifully worded is the promise.

Cui bono? The first few pages make the promise clear.

The best jobs program is economic growth. . . . Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest to pursue employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all.

But all evidence is to the contrary.

Consider the GOP's utter failure in managing unemployment. Eisenhower inherited 2.9%, doubling it to 6.6%. JFK/LBJ took it on, reducing it back to 3.4%. Nixon and Ford blew it once more, up to 7.5%. Ironically, Reagan blamed for not reducing it again, though it ended up unchanged at 7.5% Republicans now lionize the twelve years of Reagan and Bush, although they didn't do much better, leaving the Clinton administration with unemployment at 7.3%.

Bill Clinton heroically reduced unemployment to the best it has been in decades, at 4.2%, so that George W. Bush could "free-market" us all the way back to 7.8%. It is completely true that President Obama hasn't improved on that number, but in comparison, the present 8.3% could arguably be downright respectful in view of the economy he inherited from his predecessor.

In other words, all evidence for the GOP promise is to the contrary. GOP "free-market" solutions have historically proved to be job-killers. So we ask again, Cui Bono?

The answer, below the fold..

wizardwerdna

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday August 18, 2012 · 9:35 AM PDT

2012/08/18 · 09:35

Liberals have whined that Paul Ryan misleads by criticizing the President's failure to stop a GM plant closure before he took office. Have you ever heard such nonsense? A proper twenty-first century president would never use such a feeble excuse.

In contrast, President Romney has mad skills of the kind we need in America. Just fix the problem retroactively! Were Mitt Roney in office after the plant folded, he would assemble his professionals, amend his tax returns, and thereby save the plant before it ever closed. It is truly amazing what a great accountant and tax lawyer can do, and Mitt Romney truly knows how to get that done.

And it is for this reason that Mitt Romney is on solid ground when he says, "trust me." If his older returns were released today and caused problems, he can always bring his professionals out and retroactively solve the problem with an amendment. That's what he meant by "small-minded." Think bigger.

By the way, did you notice that President Obama impotently stood by while Japan was flooding? What a feeble excuse for a chief executive. In contrast, Mitt Romney would have amended his returns and some floor plans, rebuilt the Fukushima plants RETROACTIVELY to survive the earthquake and flooding. The things this man can do, if you libs would simply trust him.

Indeed, President Romney can use these skills in aid of foreign policy by undoing the '79 Islamic Revolution and reinstalling the Shah retroactively. How? Yes, by amending the tax returns, of course!

Now you understand why his tax returns must remain a state secret, if he is to perform his job properly -- we must save our three wishes for the good stuff. A twenty-first century President who cannot engage in retroactive fact-correction is now what we need. We need Mitt and the right lawyers to get that done.

Newer
Older

RSS

Why Trump Hasn't Challenged Judge Curiel in Fact

Tit for Tat...

Smirk Patrol

Quest for the Silver Bullet

Holy Fiscal Cliff, BATNA-man!

"You People" take care of "Your Poor"

Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor

Cui Bono?

The Power of the Pen