They had no reason to lie about it so who knows what those numbers represent? Somebody said there can be traffic but invisible to the public too. I used to get hundreds of viewers of my blogs and then it suddenly dropped to tens. They changed something on my dashboard about the same time which made it impossible for low-tech me to figure out how to access Comments or anything else. It was a mess. I knew which subjects would end up at the top of a Google search page too, and at that same time my blog wouldn't show up there any more, maybe at the bottom, maybe not even on the first page. I don't know why they'd bother to censor my little blog but it seems something like that must have happened.
As Mark Levin pointed out on his show yesterday such appointments aren't necessarily anything more than "horse trading" rather than concerted appointments anyway, but he could inadvertently have appointed a closet liberal, why not?
So you have no clue what the judge said in his ruling.
I didn't know about the ruling until I got here and you guys who posted on it should have given that information. Actually there is no ruling to be found, just news reports on what it supposedly says.
Oooo now there is a lovely example of just what i was talking about a few posts back (Message 191) of how I can't say anything without having some snarky mean construction put on it, the way the interrogator of Diamond and Silk kept turning their perfectly clear answers into lies. This isn't debate, this isn't discussion you are doing, this is some kind of mental abuse, very Leftist, and you do it to me all the time.
The law matters a great deal to me and this judgment is political twisting of the law. That is wacko that due process is required beyond the clear fact that the man was rude. This is a privilege, not a right, he was out of order.
Re: Violence breaks out as first wave of migrant caravan arrives in Tijuana, Mexico
But that is a pretty convoluted roundabout way of justifying illegal immigration it seems to me, and to justify it is to perpetuate the very injustice you are decrying. In other words why aren't YOU arguing against illegal immigration for the sake of these underpaid and overworked people? I also know of a situation where an illegal immigrant has made himself absolutely indispensable to a wealthy man who actually takes good care of him and his family, has set them up in a house and made other provisions for them. They are all scared to death that they might be deported, and I have to admit it would be a terrible thing for all concerned. They are doing better than most because this wealthy man truly cares for them, but there's something wrong with this whole picture. I think the country should not be subject to undocumented invasion for any reason, that our laws should determine who comes in and who doesn't, but there is also that other side you mention and that's another reason for objecting to illegality.
How come NOBODY knows how this judge ruled? You can buy a transcript of the court proceeding but otherwise you'll have to wait I think three months for it to be available to the public for free. In other words nobody knows how the law was applied or the reasoning behind it as you put it. Nobody. You too.
What's the point in producing a legal analysis that is only going to be dismissed by a politically motivated judge anyway? The only thing that carries any weight is the final judgment no matter how wacko. There is something seriously wrong with this system we have that can become the source of tyrannical judicial oppression by "judges" who are nothing but politically motivated shysters.
And yes, I do think no reporter should "challenge" the President's opinion the way this arrogant upstart self-aggrandizing "reporter" did. Certainly not then arguing with him about it after he answered. He is there at the invitation of the President, he has no legal or constitutional right to be there and yes I feel quite free to make this judgment. And from now on when you talk to me in this fashion I'm not answering you. Which is exactly what Trump did and should be allowed to do.
On Friday's Mark Levin Show, Federal Judge Timothy Kelly, has ruled, from the bench, a 14 day temporary restraining order that the White House give back Jim Acosta's hard press pass until due process can be afforded to him. The Court did not discuss the validity of CNN's first amendment claims, however the court does not allow media in the courtroom and we the American people have no idea exactly what took place in that courtroom. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would not release a public transcript of today’s ruling on Acosta’s press pass unless we paid for each page of the document, filled out an extensive application, and got the approval of the court’s office. Freedom of the press, except when it comes to the federal judiciary. Also, there is no requirement for the President to even hold a press conference or much less to call on certain reporter. We don't need a jerk in a black robe to tell us that this isn't constitutional, we know that because this is a clear violation of the separation of powers. What we're witnessing here is judicial tyranny and all they care about is themselves.
Later, Robert Mueller has submitted written questions to President Trump and he has easily answered them reiterating that there was no collusion and there should never have been an investigation or witch hunt as he calls it.
Then, election recounts in Georgia and Florida seem to be unchanged despite the effort of the Democrats to change the results. Meddling by the press, posting election projections before all precincts are counted is irresponsible; the press has a responsibility to report news for the people not for their own evil maniacal interests.
You call that a legal analysis? One vague reference to one legal principle?
Nobody called it a legal analysis that I know of, it's just a sketch of what is on the You Tube radio show I posted of Mark Levin. He specifically says at the beginning of his discussion of the judge's ruling -- about five or six I think -- that he and his wife and producer looked "in the usual places" for a transcript of the court proceeding and couldn't find it, so he was unable to analyze the ruling.
And yes he does complain a lot about the judge, that's his specialty you could say. He wrote a book about the out of control judiciary in this country ["Men in Black"], and on the program he quotes a Daniel Horowitz who has also written on the subject.
It's possible he was set up I suppose, but it would have been a rather complicated feat to pull off since the woman had facial injuries to show for her side of the story, and there is also this rather telling bit of fact that seems to have been dropped from recent reports, that when Avenatti was first arrested he said "she hit me first," which sounds like a smoking gun to me. So if this was a set-up the woman had to have intentionally provoked him by hitting him and then been willing to suffer some bruises for it. Even in that case the fact that he hit her "back" doesn't speak well for him.
As I said, this little fact about his saying she hit him first was reported at the beginning and then has become rather hard to find.
™ Version 4.2