Illegal Motivations

Liberal legal authorities are on a roll lately, and there seems to be a theme to their madness: Motivation. Intent. Bias.

A recent Supreme Court ruling, supported by all the progressive judges plus (as usual) Judge Anthony Kennedy, overturned a very long-standing principle of jurisprudence–a centuries old principle–thus opening a can of worms so large that even Kong would be hard pressed to defeat its denizens.

New trials can now be granted if lawyers can induce jurors to claim that any juror evidenced “racial bias” during deliberations. (Actually, in this case, there was no “racial” bias, unless the allegedly biased statement was made by a black person, given that the accused was of Mexican descent, an ethnic category, not a racial category.)

So now what other types of bias attributed to jurors will be questioned after the fact, in an attempt to overturn decisions? Sexism? Islamophobia? Homophobia? See the problem?

In dissent, Judge Alito wrote:

Today, with the admirable intention of providing justice for one criminal defendant, the court not only pries open the door; it rules that respecting the privacy of the jury room, as our legal system has done for centuries, violates the Constitution. [emphasis added to quotes]

So, as with many other aspects of our society, political correctness and reticence will henceforth infect jury deliberations. Free speech will no longer be free on jury panels. Jurors will be subject to having their words interpreted (or misinterpreted) by fellow jurors, perhaps those searching for microaggressions in a quest to achieve their own preferred outcome. Will jurors speak freely with that specter hanging  over their heads?

What about jurors who themselves exhibit racial bias by falsely accusing others of bias? What about those who falsely attribute bias to their fellow jurors? To what sort of post-trial investigations and tribunals will jurors be subjected?

Will offending jurors be publicly named and accused of bias? Will they be subjected to lawsuits that attempt to recover the cost to taxpayers of the first trial that resulted in a “do over” because of formerly secret words? How about defendants’ legal fees? Who would want to serve on a jury now?

Along these same lines, President Donald J. Trump’s revised travel ban, designed to protect our country from potential terrorists who can’t be sufficiently vetted in certain countries, is being challenged by the state of Washington’s attorney general:

[T]he President’s new order reinstates several of the same provisions and has the same illegal motivations as the original.

Do you see what the progressive attorney general is doing? He intends to challenge President Trump’s order based upon Trump’s presumed motivations, not upon the law. In addition, he intends to challenge the order on constitutional grounds, as illegal religious discrimination. But President Trump has gone to great lengths to remove from the order any potential impact upon a person who has constitutional rights in the USA.

Persons in other countries have no constitutional right to travel here. They have no constitutional right to not be discriminated against when a president makes decisions about the national security of our country. Only U.S. citizens and people subject to our jurisdiction (e.g., being already on our soil) have constitutional rights. Foreign citizens have no rights under our Constitution.

When the AG of WA talks about “illegal motivations,” he’s signaling that he intends to argue that during the campaign, now-President Trump mentioned a “Muslim ban.” From that so-called evidence of “illegal motivations,” the state of Washington intends to try to second guess the intent of the President and apply their conclusions to his executive order!

Where will it end? Henceforth, will every action taken by the President be subjected to second-guessing about his assumed motivations? If so, who will be the “decider?” If the answer is the Courts, that stands our entire system of government on its head.

The President of the United States is the decider on issues of national security. This is very clear under the Constitution. He is also the Commander in Chief. Will every military decision also be subject to a determination of Trump’s potentially “illegal motivations” by courts?

Let’s talk about illegal motivations in the context of former-president Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential decisions.

When Obama said that “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,”  did he signal that any attorney general across the Republic could challenge Obama when he made decisions concerning who would be admitted as refugees and who would not? An overwhelming number of the refugees who came to the USA during Obama’s term were Muslim, not Christian, despite that Christians are persecuted in many countries of the Muslim world. Was this evidence of “illegal motivations” on Obama’s part?

What potentially illegal motivation did Obama have when he ordered his administration to break long-standing precedent and allow raw signals intelligence to be shared across all 17 intelligence agencies? This act allowed illegal leaks of classified information to the media and deliberately (?) obfuscated the source of those leaks, illegally and unconstitutionally smearing the reputations of innocent U.S. citizens.

Will the attorney general of Washington state care to investigate the illegal motivations of the former president?


119 responses to “Illegal Motivations


    A good article about illegal motivations on Obama’s part. His shadow government, for starters.

  2. ~ fedupMan Charles hammer •
    Trump won. DA d’s go to the back of the bus & be quiet. Here is the juiciest part. The “real” Obama legacy he leaves behind is:
    1. A Republican President 2. Republican Vice President
    3. Republican control of the Senate 4. Republican control of the House
    5. Republican control of 31 state houses
    6. A majority of Republican governors 36 of 50
    7. Republican control of a majority of county governments
    8. Republican control of a majority of city governments
    9. Republicans pick the SCOTUS that will last decades.
    Now THAT is Hope and Change. R’s now have RECORD #’s of R’s in political positions all over the USA. The grand total: of dem LOSSES ARE 1,042 STATE and FEDERAL Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency. The dems only have FIVE states that have a dem governor and state legislature. In 2018 Dems must defend 23 Senate seats — 10 of them in states that Trump won BIG-time. THANK you Obama. Couldn’t have DONE it WITHOUT you. Trump got his votes in 2,626 counties – 84% nationwide, while Clinton got her votes in just 487 counties. That’s a very LOW number, even for a Democrat. When former President Barack Obama won 689 counties nationwide in 2009, he set a RECORD for the LOWEST number of counties WON by a winning presidential candidate.

    A bit off topic but
    Another GREAT part of Obama’s legacy, & one that will be remembered as he’s slated to receive a ‘lifetime achievement award’ is for him being the greatest gun salesman ever. By far.

    The NRA should formally propose this award & invite the former Commander in chief to a gala ceremony in his honor.

    • The media are going crazy over this. But Trump let them stay in office for almost two months, whereas Clinton fired all 93 ASAP. Barry fired a lot of them, too. They’re especially going crazy over that Preet guy, in NY. I don’t know what’s up with that. Word seemed to be that he was good. Going after corruption. Fearless. I wonder. He was supposedly investigating the Wiener connection and the Clinton emails, wasn’t he? Curious. Supposedly Trump told him he could stay but now he’s fired. Sessions must have wanted him gone. Good for Jeff Sessions.

      • Looks like, when the President calls, you’d damn well better answer or call back asap. Sounds almost like he got the ax for refusing to return the call or for not sending a letter of resignation as a matter of form, when asked. If he’d sent it, it may be that Trump, like he did with others, would have NOT accepted it.

        • On the other hand: “However, there are protocols governing a president’s direct contact with federal prosecutors. According to two people with knowledge of the events who were not authorized to discuss sensitive conversations publicly, Mr. Bharara notified an adviser to the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that the president had tried to contact him and that he would not respond because of those protocols. …”

          You’re not going to get any brownie points by insulting the President by implication–that is, being holier-than-thou and refusing to return a phone call because of “protocols” implying that the President is doing something wrong or trying to interfere in some kind of investigation.

          btw, these reporters discuss rules and “protocols” that were INVENTED AND INSTIGATED BY OBAMA. What makes anybody think that a new president is bound by the personally designated rules of the road of the former president? If Obama could make the rules, then surely Trump can break them and make his own.

          I am wondering now: Would the U.S. Attorney be the person to make the call on prosecutions, say, of any Weiners? If so, then perhaps this is a signal of something coming soon …

  3. ~ Oldsailor65 …. ^^^^ YEP!! the FACTS …^^^^
    We have to accept the fact that non Muslims are at war with Islam whether they want to be or Not. The non Muslim world should no longer allow Muslims to immigrate out of their Muslim country & should cut off all trade with Muslim countries. Being PC may be the Death of Humanity as we know it. When dealing with people who R Taught by their Holy Koran that there is Nothing Wrong with Lying– …..what good is vetting? ??? REALLY WHY?

    Islam is like a disease & should be quarantined. Stop all trade with Muslim countries then they will have to learn how to produce something besides kids & explosives & weapons. They will just kill each other. Hopefully they will wake up & realize how wrong their ****up religion is. ???? i doubt it!

  4. From the Horses mouth!! 😆

    • Just another crime to add to the list of Obama administration crimes. I read somewhere that it’s more like 9500 documents, but who’s counting?

  5. don’t ya never EVER come BACK!!! EVER!

  6. the beautiful WALL is working …. GREAT! …. perfect-O’!!!

    • That’s an interesting one, huh? It doesn’t look like Barry to me, either. The guy in the background looks more like him. The daughter is trying to go Beyonce, with the blond locks? I read a hilarious article today. One of those “can you guess these celebrities’ IQs?” Well, they had the Obama family. Let’s see if I can remember their “ESTIMATED” IQs. I have no idea how anybody went about estimating someone’s IQ, but they had younger daughter as the brains of the clan at, iirc, 156. Then came older daughter. She was something like 146. Barry was 141 (amazing they didn’t “estimate” him at 300!) while Moo was, get this, 115. HA! Let’s guess that the Obama factor and political correctness is involved so you can shave at least 20 pts. off all of them, which would put “Michael” below average, which sounds about right to me.

  7. Was this some kind of trial run? This is extremely disturbing. HOW THE HELL did this guy get SO CLOSE? What if there were something more dangerous in his backpack than a letter and mace?

    The WH seems to have laxer security than an ordinary home. NO ALARMS went off? The first they knew of this guy right next to the WH was when they SPOTTED HIM? What the hell kind of 21st century technology are they using? Let’s not forget what McVeigh accomplished simply by parking a truck outside a building. This is insane. HOW did he get so close to our president?


    That’s breaking out again now. The muslim brothers in the Democrat House.

    Imran Awan — the lead suspect in a criminal probe into breaches of House of Representatives information security systems — possessed the password to an iPad used by then-Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz when DNC emails were given to WikiLeaks, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned. … House authorities set their sights on the Awans while investigating the existence of a secret server that was funneling congressional data off-site.

    They also suspect Imran of stealing money and equipment. Soon after he joined Wasserman Schultz’s congressional payroll in 2005, four of his relatives and one of his friends began getting paid by House members. It is not clear whether ghost employees are part of the theft being investigated, but the family collected a combined $5 million.

    Over the last six years, the individuals in question worked for some 80 members of Congress, all Democrats, including members of the homeland security, foreign affairs and intelligence committees. They worked for multiple members at once, since the offices did not require full-time IT services. …

    Computer security experts say the most common threat comes from someone abusing a position of trust, trusting the wrong person or a perpetrator manipulating someone using “social engineering” to gain access; all such explanations defy the prevalent stereotype of distant strangers using high-tech tricks. … [iow, Russians]

    Earlier this year, the brothers were accused of using high-tech listening devices against their own stepmom as part of a scheme to ensure that she didn’t stop them from accessing money stashed in Pakistan under their father’s name. A relative said they threatened to have the woman’s loved ones in Pakistan kidnapped if she didn’t give them power of attorney to access assets stored in their dying father’s name. …”

    Nice guys, huh? And INEXPLICABLY the Dems refused the FBI access to their computers and servers AND they are standing behind these guys. NOT FIRED yet, so what do they know? Huh?

    • Yeah. I think I remember seeing that somewhere. It’s Podesta’s brother, iirc. Isn’t he somehow connected to that pizza place? And hired at a BANK, too! It’s another case of the “accuse your enemy of what you do yourself.” It’s crazy. Don’t expect to see this on the front page of the NY Times. I wonder: Did HE register as a foreign agent?

  9. facebkwallflower

    Amish man being hassled by FDA and faces many, many years in prison. Video is woman who has documented the whole shebang. Interesting and easy to listen to (or can read transcript)

    There is some interesting things in the report, like the local sheriff told FDA and federal law enforcements they could not arreat the Amish man in his county because he,the sheriff, would not provide anyone present for the arrest. Video explains why this is important pertaining to the eventual arrest. Nice, easy voice to listen to and woman is really making an effort to help.

  10. This is one of the most bizarre stories lately:

    Turkey and the Netherlands at each others’ throats.

    “On Saturday the Dutch government withdrew landing permission for a Turkish foreign minister’s aircraft, sparking a furious reaction by Turkish president Recep Erdogan and escalating a diplomatic dispute between the two NATO allies.

    The primary concern of the Dutch was the Islamic Turks inability to assemble without violence in Rotterdam. Throughout the day tensions grew until finally a full-blown Islamist riot began and the Dutch government were forced to respond with riot police. …

    [The] Turkish family affairs minister is being escorted back to the German border from where she came after she tried to reach the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam against the wishes of the Dutch government. …”

    Methinks it’s wise that and maybe WHY Trump let Flynn go, given that he was working FOR some Turkish company that’s allegedly tied to Turkey’s government during the campaign. Wait for it. Now we’ll have to hear the Dems screaming about Trumps “ties” to Turkey. Of course, nobody was interested in whether or not Barry was involved in that coup attempt.

  11. Just askin’: Isn’t the ACLU a not-for-profit that’s not to engage in PARTISAN politicking?

    Training the “resistance” against Trump. Is it illegal?


    Ho, hum. Do we believe it? Just disgruntled contractors upset about potentially losing their jobs? Happened in December, right as Obama was leaving and before Trump came in. Again, do we believe it?

  13. Something to ponder.

    • I hope they get something passed and that it is better than what we have now. Otherwise, you can imagine the headlines. Trump failed. Trump stole your health insurance. Yadda yadda yadda. Obamacare was a poison pill. There’s no easy way out of it, because they designed it that way. Now they’re astroturfing “protests” by people who claim to be for Obamacare. They just want the Republicans to NOT repeal it or replace it, because they only want to say that Trump didn’t keep his promise. Whatever happens, at least he’s trying. Nobody but the lamestream will care. AS IF the lamestream wants Trump to keep his promises. They’re such hypocrites. They truly ARE the enemy of the people. They sure as hell don’t work FOR us. Liars.


    Did you see this one? Kucinich backs up Trump on the wiretapping issue because, he says, HE was wiretapped by Obama (with or without a warrant). The conversation he had with someone overseas was recorded from his OFFICE in the Congress and given to the media! The RECORDING was given to a reporter who played it for Kucinich. He says Obama did it because Kucinich was opposing Obama on some issue at the time. OY! Amazing. I wonder if the NY Times will quote Dennis or if McLame is going to come out and challenge Kucinich to “take it back” or prove it or else. If it’s slanderous and insulting for Trump to accuse Obama, then the same holds true for Kucinich. (He may be a liberal but ya gotta love Dennis Kucinich.)

    • Did you see this one? With regard to progressives trying to change how everyone thinks and talks and what’s sanctioned thought and speech versus verboten (according to them):

      A sample:

      ” My partner pressures me to change the color of my hair from time to time. “Pressures” because even though I tell them that no, I’m not willing to bleach my hair again, or anymore, they start telling me how selfish and coldhearted I am.

      I know that if I told my partner that it would make me resentful — which would aggravate the already resentful air this relationship has from both sides — they would just say, “Well, stop being resentful, then!” or, “If you can’t stop feeling resentful, then just learn how to do it.” …”

      Now, can you make heads or tails of that query? How many partners are involved here? If it’s one, then why is partner a they/them? Did your head spin trying to understand this paragraph? Mine did. Obviously, this was written in the new gender-speech–that is, a person gets to define the pronoun and so this person’s partner must prefer to be a they. In which case, then why isn’t that person partnerS, plural? Surely if the person thinks he or she is a THEY, then the person believes he or she is multiple genders and persons–right? So the other person is in a relationship with partners, not a single gender/partner. Right?

    • They are so insane. If Kong is a metaphor for black masculinity, then what’s Godzilla? Mothra? Sheesh. Sometimes a snake is just a snake.

      Wait a minute. Are THEY actually seeing Kong as a black person? Who’re the racists now? I see a gorilla. I don’t see black people. If they do, then …

      That’s really funny that there’s a professor who specializes in studying King Kong. A FICTIONAL character. So is she engaged in a fake career? The thing is, back in the 30s, it wasn’t long after gorillas were first discovered. It’s like with King Tut. Once his tomb was found, it started off a whole thing in Hollywood. The Mummy, etc. Lots of stories with Egyptian themes. Same with gorillas. They were fascinating to a public that had never seen anything like them. So Hollywood (full of LIBERALS and commies, at the time, and still today) came up with these sensational thrillers. Same with atomic bombs. Radiation and its power, which is how we got Mothra and Godzilla in the first place, right? Jurassic Park. What’s THAT a metaphor for?

  15. Coleman said: ….^^^^^^

    King Kong was a metaphor for black masculinity. This is a big black

    man, a big black ape who is absolutely obsessed with … white women.

    • That’s a really good article. It’s amazing what Obama got away with here. I’m a little confused about what she’s saying with regard to Obama’s DOJ saying there was no “remote” spying but that the intruder was in her apartment. She seems to deny it and says, I think, that they limited their investigation to “remote” spying and then declared no spying on her personal pc happened (remotely, that is). But why? Is she saying that they KNOW or think they KNOW that there WAS someone getting into her place and looking at her pc and then modifying the date/time records to obfuscate when it happened? It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn they actually broke into her house. Isn’t that also part of FISA or at least FBI counterterrorism/counterespionage investigations, that they can go in and sniff around without a warrant but can’t use in court anything they find or learn?

  16. Former Attorney General Eric Holder & former President Obama ^^^

    “It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the Eyes Follow You about when You Move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.” – George Orwell, “1984”

  17. O’ LINWOOD …”KAINE”…as he RAN like a DOG as they tried 2
    arrest @the RALLY..such A PUNK… BUTT” they got him anyhow!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s