The FBI was already investigating at least four Trump campaign linked individuals in September 2016!

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

Saturday February 24, 2018 · 6:28 PM PST

2018/02/24 · 18:28

On page 3 of the Schiff memo, we find the phrase

By then, the FBI had already opened sub-inquiries into **** individuals linked to the Trump campaign:

By common usage, one spells out numbers between one and nine, instead of using numerals. A quick measurement of the space used by the blacked out area seems to indicate that only four, five, or nine would fit using the same font. The is corroborated by the blacked out area that seems like it was a list of the individuals under investigation following the ‘:”. The next sentence contains a blacked out area that only has room for two likely words, either “several” or “the other”.

the FBI would have continued its investigation, including against ****** individuals

So, we now know for sure that the FBI was investigating at least four people linked to the Trump campaign in September 2016, significantly before Comey’s letter about Hillary’s emails.

If we won't fight, then we should give up!

curlew32

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

Sunday February 04, 2018 · 6:53 PM PST

2018/02/04 · 18:53

Let's just introduce the following Bill.

An Act to legalize the actions of the President when the President's party controls both houses of Congress.

When the President's party controls both houses of Congress the word shall, when found in the phrase "the President shall", anywhere in the US code, shall be interpreted to mean "may". At all other times it will have it's customary meaning.

Or, we could insist that we will not support any CR that does not contain the following provision:

No monies from the US Treasury shall be expended for any leisure travel by the President or to protect the President during such travel until the Russian Sanctions Act has been implemented.

I know which I prefer!

The most important demand for Democratic Budget Votes...

curlew32

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

Sunday December 17, 2017 · 7:27 PM PST

2017/12/17 · 19:27

is to require that any attempt to fire or interfere with Bob Mueller’s office result in immediate review by the full Supreme Court, and pending the decision of the court, any such action shall have no effect.

If the Republicans refuse to support such a measure, then everyone can see they are hypocrites, who have no desire for an impartial investigation to be completed. If they pass it, then Trump could veto it, and personally shutdown the government to preserve his option to fire Mueller, which he denies planning to do.

I don’t think there any issue more critical than this one. All of the others are important, but this is the only one which is could truly avert a constitutional crisis.

Let's get Trump's electors to insist he deliver on at least one promise before they vote.

curlew32

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

Friday November 11, 2016 · 7:42 PM PST

2016/11/11 · 19:42

I don’t think we can get Trump’s electors to vote for Hillary unconditionally, but maybe we can get a few to threaten to switch their votes if he doesn’t immediately deliver on his promise to release his tax returns….

That’s the one promise he made that he can deliver on before he is inaugurated.

What does everyone think?

NO TAX RETURNS — NO PRESIDENCY!!!

Unlikely ballistics in Michael Brown case

curlew32

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

Tuesday December 02, 2014 · 8:00 AM PST

2014/12/02 · 08:00

I'm not a ballistics expert, but I don't understand why all of the ejected cartridges in the Michael Brown case were found on the street. It seems to me that based on Darren Wilson's testimony that the first shot, fired through the door was fired while Michael Brown had his body in the window. That makes it very unlikely, but not impossible that the ejected cartridge would be able to get into the street. The second shot was also supposed to have been fired in the car. I would have expected one or both spent cartridges to have stayed in the car.

The report from the crime lab says on page 3 that the cartridges were from "street in front of 2964 canfield" - see here

Maybe someone with some actual investigatory experience can comment?

Does Voter ID "deny or abridge" the right to vote

curlew32

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

Thursday October 30, 2014 · 10:41 PM PDT

2014/10/30 · 22:41

If Texas or any other state loses their Voter ID appeals does that mean that their congressional apportionment must be reduced as per 2 USC section 6?

Should any State deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants thereof, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the amendment to the Constitution, article 14, section 2, except for participation in the rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned to such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Presumably if Texas' voter ID can be shown to have disenfranchised male voters over the age of 21, then their apportionment must be reduced automatically under this law. If we accept the estimate of 600,000 disenfranchised voters and assume that about 50% are males over 21 years old, and that Texas has about 9,000,000 mail citizens over 21, then Texas' apportionment would need to be reduced by about 300,000/9,000,000 , or about 3.3%. That would mean that for the purpose of assigning congressional seats, texas would lose ~25million people tines 3.3% or 825,000 population. Since the average Congressional District is about 700,000 people, Texas would have to give up on seat in Congress.

I can't see anything wrong with this analysis, but I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps someone with a legal background could comment?

Assuming I've read the law correctly, how would this be enforced? Could any citizen sue to force the appropriate re-apportionment, or would it require some state official from whichever state would get the Congressional Seat Texas would be required to relinquish?

I haven't done the math for the other states that are preventing males over 21 from voting in this congressional election, but if their laws are also found unconstitutional, then I assume they would also be required to have reduced apportionments.

Newer
Older

RSS