I think you seem to be focusing on my post history about election fraud. I firmly disagree with it, however this site (by virtue of the TD.W shills) has a tendency to post quite a bit of it. Nonetheless, I entered this community with an understanding — at the time supported by u/axolotl_peyotl — that I did not have to support Trump. Accordingly, you'll see me disagreeing with election fraud quite a bit in my post history. Every time I disagree, I provide plenty of citations and links to support my position, and I always try to respond to adverse comments. See, e.g., Equal Protection (explaining Equal Protection jurisprudence in response to a comment posing two possible interpretations). By the same token, I'll readily support right-aligned positions when they are valid. See, e.g., Impoundment Act (supporting POTUS' utilization of the Act insofar as rescinding funds).
Finally, I'll leave you with this. For this entire comment chain, I've asked you to discuss with me. Instead, you opted to call me a shill, clown, pathetic, and ineffective. You insisted you don't need any legal advice or interpretation from me. Moreover, you've launched a baseless claim that I'm a paid shill — despite me being here since the C.w's inception. On the other hand, you ironically have a traceable link to TD.W. You decry me for "deriding people who disagree" and not engaging in good faith discussion. Yet, you've done nothing but deride me in bad faith throughout this chain.
Oh I don't necessarily expect you to take anything from it, you've made it pretty clear you're not a fan of learning. However, I think others in this community would like to see why you're wrong, so — again — please fire away.
Again, you're absolutely welcome to challenge anything I've said! I know some of the points of law can be hard to understand, so I'm genuinely happy to walk through them with you.
Would you like to actually challenge anything I said, or are you just going to repeat the same MAGA-safe-space line that blames reality on MSM?
Peep Steve Donziger also, lawyer that challenged Chevron in Ecuador and is now under house arrest for contempt charges.
Oh trust me, I'm eagerly awaiting January 20th to see what the next TD.W-sponsored conspiracy is on this site.
Feel free to challenge any of my points! I'd love for you to point to something specifically that I'm shilling on.
So glad I'm finally getting noticed, thank you! What shill argument of mine are you referring to? Was it my legal interpretation of the Impoundment Act? My explanation of the Equal Protection clause? This "Federal Indictments 101" comment? The legal property rights in DNA?
You're welcome to challenge my opinions, and I encourage you to do so, that makes for a productive community. However, if my comments — that are grounded in law and fact — worry you, then you may want to reconsider who's the shill.
To be clear, they're being sent publicly available information from an automated dispatch server that, presumably, was originated as a result of some kind of public records request.
Edit: In response to your edit, I agree that July voter eligibility has no relevance. All the more reason why I fail to see how a single, context-lacking screenshot — of an email sent nearly a month after the election — supports any claim of foreign interference in the election, lol.
Biden has the votes counted in his favor; Trump does some anger-fueled tweeting; TD.W says this is all part of "the plan" or something; nothing changes.
Doubt it.
A well-placed source has provided CDMedia with extensive evidence The White House has obtained on foreign interference before, during and after the Nov 3rd U.S. general election.
The only piece of "evidence" in the article is a screenshot of an automated notification from November 29, 2020, this is legit one of those do-not-reply notifications that data servers send in responding to queries. Not to mention, this same information is publicly available here.
Can't wait for this comment to be downvoted.
Yeah I think he went through mine and downvoted everything he could, I suddenly have at least one on all of my comments. He's definitely got commitment, I'll give him that lmfao
I like your name!
If an account is illegitimately labeling people as shills, maybe it is best that we start presuming they're a moderator alternate. Axo has already demonstrated he's not impartial in moderation...
Axo alt.
Actually yes! That's why I went to law school, we're all just clowns.
Ah, citing fake, disproven information. Typical MAGA.
They don't have to block this, they just have no obligation to comply with the portions requesting additions to the (now signed-into-law) bill. The actual rescission of funding element can be vetoed by either House under the Act; both Houses have to pass a bill of rescission within 45 days of the President's proposed rescission for it to be permanent.
The Impoundment Act is a fucking mess, sorry.
Oh, absolutely he got crushed and the election fraud argument is worthless. I still agree with my earlier, unrelated comment that you've trekked through my comment history to find.
That said, my personal opinion doesn't invalidate an objective legal analysis. Nor does holding an adverse personal opinion make me a shill. As much as you might want this to be TD.W, it isn't.
The part about Section 230 is a little iffy, here's my explanation why.
I don't know how else to tell you that it does. See, 5 U.S.C. § 2105 (limiting the definition of an "employee" under the Whistleblower Protection Act to federal positions).
Time for a legal lesson, gather round! This is interesting and it could — although, practically speaking, probably won't — be challenged in court as an over-exercise of executive power.
Part of the reason this Act isn't usually heard of is because it's pretty narrowly constructed. The President can only invoke recession/reservation (2 USC § 683) or deferral (2 USC § 684) of "budget authority" under the Act. First, this has been interpreted to mean that the President can only invoke the Act when Congress has explicitly designated that the President has discretion in budgeting under the relevant law. See, County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Noting "[w]here Congress has failed to give the President discretion in allocating funds, the President has no constitutional authority to withhold such funds and violates his obligation to faithfully execute the laws duly enacted by Congress if he does so"). Thus, every item the President redlines in the COVID bill would have to have been explicitly designated as a discretionary spending by Congress. It's not clear if this is the case, but I'm not going to read that 5,000-page mess to speculate as to what the President can and cannot rescind, so let's just assume he probably can rescind the wasteful spending he wants to.
The Act, however, provides no authority for the President to request that Congress ADD things to a piece of piece of legislation. In fact, the Congress that passed the Impoundment Act intended to prohibit the President from using the Act to effect policy changes — instead, deferments and rescissions are intended to be for routine, programmatic purposes. Consider New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987):
For permanent impoundments (or "rescissions"), Congress adopted the Senate approach, which required prior legislative approval of proposed impoundments. For temporary impoundments (or "deferrals"), Congress adopted the House approach, which allowed impoundments to become effective without prior approval if neither House of Congress passed a resolution disapproving the impoundment. Importantly, Congress also amended the Anti-Deficiency Act to preclude the President from relying on that Act as authority for implementing policy impoundments.
Thus, the President's rescission of part of the COVID bill could be challenged for two reasons. First, it's unclear whether POTUS actually has the budget authority he needs to do these rescissions. Second, the recessions — both by the language and intent of the Act — cannot be based upon contingent additions to a signed law.
Practically speaking, no way in hell this gets challenged in Court. The democrats wanted greater stimulus checks, the republicans will not break with Trump. Expect the stimulus checks to be amended as requested. The only issue I predict is the Democrat-held House resisting any changes to § 230 or the initiation of voter-fraud investigations. That issue, however, is not yet before us.
Yeah, it was a record-setting election, your point?
He got "crushed." The votes show this, which is why the MAGA movement has spent the last month trying (unsuccessfully) to discredit the election.
As much as a dick as axo sometimes is, he's been very reluctant to issue bans or delete comments, which I respect quite a bit.