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

  1. You know that Trump server that kept talking to a Russian bank and provides all the ammo for the obamacratic party to pursue Trump as a Russian stooge?
    From AJ Strata:
    Let me begin with the follow-up story that came out a day after the first, which exposes many gross fallacies in the first story that Hillary so cheerfully tweeted about. These fallacies blow holes in the remaining narrative being peddled to this day by the Fake News Media regarding Trump connections to Russia. The big error – it was a Trump server:

    1) Does Trump control the server in question?

    In a detailed post critiquing my piece, cybersecurity expert Rob Graham wrote, “The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain, nor has access to the server.” This echoes the point raised by Vox, the Intercept, and others that the server was not operated by the Trump Organization directly. Rather, it was run and managed by Cendyn, a vendor that organizes email marketing campaigns for hotels and resorts.

    Whoa there Nelly! This server was not owned or managed or maintained by Trump, his campaign or his business?

    That’s right folks. This server belonged to an email service provider that some entity associated with Trump bought services from. That’s like linking me (or anyone) to a Google Server using a gmail account as the smoking gun.
    That is too ridiculous for belief!
    article is at:

    What’s happening with the new Supreme Court appointee anyways?
    I’m thinking that Trump may as well try to get the Senate to give up the 60% rule. If he doesn’t they will make very little progress and in 2018 the obamacrats will use that against the republicans. I can see the disadvantages of ending the 60% filibuster rule but are not most of the Senate seats up for election in 2018 belonging to the obamacratic party?
    Maybe worth the risk.

    • Good info, Dave. Thanks. As for Gorsuch–I saw a puff piece about him in the paper yesterday. Actually didn’t read it, but skimmed the first few paragraphs. Can’t figure out why the lamestream would be praising him at this point. What I’d like to know is what’s happening with Coats? He’s not been confirmed YET! They’re trying to use the Wikileaks CIA thing to campaign for the FISA re-authorization to NOT happen, at least not as it currently is. How convenient, huh? They’re going to grill Coats on it, because apparently he’s for the re-authorization. Methinks they know how Barry utilized and abused this power and they now want to make sure Trump doesn’t follow suit. I mean, Obama tapped Congressional office phones (!), Feinstein (right?), Atkisson and Rosen (reporters), and his political opponents’ team. Iow, he probably tapped ANYBODY he considered even remotely to be an enemy or somebody from whom he could gather political ammunition. They certainly don’t want Trump to try it, too. Imagine tapping Barry’s and ValJar’s current conversations. btw, again, how can the ACLU possibly remain not-for-profit and run the “resistance” AGAINST Trump? They most certainly are because when you go to their site, there’s a pop-up warning you to resist TRUMP. By name. ILLEGAL, because he is ALREADY a registered candidate for 2020. In addition, right on the site, they talk about the importance of protesting against TRUMP. Naming him. This is illegal. They should lose their not-for-profit status immediately.

  2. Lawbreakers for sure. 👿

  3. A POTUS that listens. ❤

  4. March 13, 2017
    What the left cannot admit: Trump is already growing & changing in office
    By Thomas Lifson

    The left, including its mainstream media & academic branches, is utterly committed to a vision of President Trump as shallow, stupid, & incapable of changing his immature and ignorant ways of doing things. They need to believe this because their own sense of self-esteem comes from what they consider their contrast with Trump. In their own minds, they are intelligent, deep, & devoted to learning. Their large vocabularies are merely the most obvious proof of their superiority to Trump.

    If Trump succeeds, then maybe they aren’t as Smart as they Think themselves to Be. So that thought must never enter their minds. Everything he does has to fail. ….. NEVER EVER!!!! ha

    • The thing is, EVERY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT (Quayle, e.g.) is considered and presented as ” shallow, stupid, & incapable of changing,” so what’s new? NOTHING. They’re never going to say anything good about Trump, probably ever, but certainly not for decades, if then. Look how long it took them to say anything good about Reagan. Every Republican is considered stupid, dumb, or, failing that, cleverly evilly corrupt.

    • I’m putting this here because a P&E article about how deep the spying goes reminded me of something Gowdy said–that if there was spying on Trump, there’s a paper trail. That’s total BS and Gowdy likely knows it. He keeps saying it and I can’t figure his angle. Presumption is that he’s on Trump’s side, but the GOPe and RINOs (think McCain) are going out there against Trump. Imagine McCain challenging Trump to prove his allegation by yesterday! The thing is, there’s SUPPOSED TO BE A PAPER TRAIL. But absent one, does that mean that Obama did NOT spy on Trump’s campaign? NO WAY! It would just mean they did it illegally. So no paper trail does NOT mean there was no spying. We already KNOW, according to the leaked transcript of Flynn’s conversation and lamestream news REPORTS, that Trump Tower WAS wiretapped. Otherwise, they could not HAVE a transcript. Now Gowdy does say that absent the illegal leaks, there would not even be any conversation about this issue. True. But without the illegal spying, there couldn’t be illegal leaks!

      • I tried to find the actual list at the Harvard site yesterday and couldn’t. I wonder if it’s scrubbed already, on account of the publicity. Anyway, it’s interesting that they give the guidelines for “fake news” and then make a list of only conservative sites and link to the FAKE FACT CHECKERS. The thing is, their own guidelines would allow all those conservative sites to pass muster. What’s really fake news are the purportedly objective, fair and balanced, mainstream media that publish outright LIES and get caught doing it. They excoriate Gateway Pundit for a few times he got punked by fake news and yet mainstream media outlets have done the same. All they do is issue their “corrections.” Even the pretty reputable WSJ ends up publishing several corrections a day. Does that make THEM “fake news” because sometimes they get details wrong? No. Everybody makes mistakes or words something in a way they didn’t mean. Only liberals, however, are allowed to apologize, correct, and then be forgiven.

        The funniest part of their guidelines is this one:

        “Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.”

        Ha, ha. REPUTABLE news sites that don’t report means the story is fake? Yeah, right. Like how most of the mainstream avoided ANY news article that made Obama look bad? That meant the truth about Obama was “fake news” because they didn’t WANT to report anything negative? From the list at the bottom, it looks as if they’re taking the charges of BIAS on their part more seriously. Now Daily Kos is listed. It’s funny that it’s someone’s OPINION about what the site represents and the person doing the opinionating is anonymous! Against their own rules. Now, it could be by that woman listed at the bottom, but who knows? S/he does later on say it’s personal opinion! Noticed that Gateway Pundit isn’t even listed! That is interesting itself. IIRC, they have LAWYERS. Oh, wait! I see. The geniuses at Harvard have indexed Gateway Pundit under T, for The. I also noticed misspellings.

  5. Aging Illinois River lock is on infrastructure priority list … VERY COOL!

    As he navigates through the locks south of Beardstown, Ill., an Ingram Barge Co. tow pilot explains the problems with the Depression-era structures. The La Grange lock & dam are on a list of priority infrastructure projects being considered by the Trump administration.
    …… Breaking News …………….(Chris Walker / Chicago

    Illinois rivers project could get new life with Trump infrastructure push
    Often overlooked in an age of air travel & superhighways, infrastructure on the Midwest’s major rivers may be poised for an upgrade. Seven locks & dams on the Mississippi & Illinois rivers, which allow barges carrying 22 million tons of commodities each year to travel between St. Louis, Chicago…

    • That is cool. The progressives/environmentalists have been against locks and dams, allegedly to protect species but really because they hate commerce and think it’s damaging to the environment. However, rather than using the natural power of rivers, the companies end up using carbon-spewing things like trains, trucks, and planes. Isn’t it more environmentally friendly to use water power to move goods? Even taking stuff upstream uses less energy than trucking it all over the place.

  6. the DIRTY COUPLE $tink$!!!

  7. Anyone who falls within the “refugee/immigrant” ban under the blocked EO Travel Ban should be redirected and permitted entry into the USA via Hawaii and detained there indefinitely. Let them have their very own Sanctuary State. Easy Peasy.

    • Capital idea!

      • Judge Jeanine Pirro agrees!

        • Why can’t she be vice-president? Or AG? Or head of DHS? I love her and not just because she agrees with me. 🙂

        • imho, Trump should IGNORE these extralegal “legal” injunctions and institute the ban, anyway. WWBD? What would Barry do? Whatever the hell he pleased. However, in Trump’s case, the LAW and the CONSTITUTION would be on Trump’s side. Not so with Barry.

        • Ha, ha. I love how Jeanine talks about the four corners of the document. That’s something that Judge Judy fans know ALL ABOUT, when she refuses to listen to any extraneous, inadmissable, or irrelevant gossip or hearsay or other BS.

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