Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Deadbeat Donnie’ Category


Example from the Rolling Stone.

Stormy Daniels, in her new book, apparently has explicit details of the Presidential genitalia, and the press is having a collective nervous breakdown trying to figure out how to cover that news without explicit descriptions of the male sexual organ. I’m just over here giggling like a middle schooler at the whole circus.

I wish Ms. Daniels well. But I’m not going to read her book. I already have a good enough image of Donald Trump naked in my head, and it requires brain bleach.

– Badtux the “Blech!” Penguin

Read Full Post »

Reminder: Race, gender, and religion are protected classes under anti-discrimination laws. You aren’t allowed to discriminate against people based on those things.

However, “liar”, “bigot”, and “baby snatcher” are *not* protected classes under anti-discrimination laws. If you want to refuse service to liars, bigots, and baby snatchers, i.e., if you want to discriminate based upon the character of their soul rather than upon the color of their skin, you are entirely within your freedom of association rights under the 1st Amendment to tell them get off your property.

I mention this because multiple Trump Administration officials have faced difficulties eating out ever since the story of the baby gulags broke. And the question is this: Is it okay to make sure that baby snatchers don’t get to eat out in peace, as Maxine Waters suggested?

On one side you have rabid racists, baby snatchers, people who harass women outside of abortion clinics, and an assortment of other white racists some of whom, our dear Hair Twitler has assured us, are good people. On the other side you have believers in justice, tolerance, decency, and kindness. We already know what the first side is like. The Trumpanzees come out of the woodwork hooting and howling and throwing feces every time their Hair Twitler tweets a twit on Twitter, making life miserable for anybody who dares criticize their God-Emperor Donald The Trump. On the other side you have nice people who really aren’t all that into getting up into people’s faces and being loud. Unless….

Unless the people they are being unkind to are BAD PEOPLE. And I have a sure-fired way of telling who are BAD PEOPLE right now: If they defend snatching babies away from their parents — or lie about it — they are BAD PEOPLE. People who force 8 year old children to represent themselves in immigration court even though it is illegal to charge someone under age 11 with a crime in Federal court because they are held to be too immature to possess mens rea, the ability to comprehend the difference between lawful and unlawful behavior? BAD PEOPLE. If they defend those who snatch babies away from their parents? They are BAD PEOPLE. If they help snatch babies away from their parents? They are BAD PEOPLE.

Yes, it really is that simple.

And what should be done with BAD PEOPLE when law fails to deal with the fact that they are BAD PEOPLE, other than a good old fashioned shunning, including refusing to date them and restaurants refusing to serve them — especially Mexican restaurants (duh)? I mean, really. Should good people associate with people who are BAD PEOPLE?

And then some good people say, “but if we just explain and are kind and patient to them, they’ll become good people!” Sadly, that really doesn’t happen. Bad people don’t possess the empathy or willingness to listen that is necessary to become good people. You take your average racist inbred vicious redneck, all he’s going to do is sneer at good people who try to be friendly with him. Because they are cruel people, and see nothing wrong with cruelty and sneer at those who do as being “weak libtards”, and are never going to change. They haven’t over the past 50 years of my life anyhow, so why would they change now?

Given that, the only thing we can do with these BAD PEOPLE is to not voluntarily associate with them. Because voluntarily associating with them says we condone being bad people, and encourages children to themselves become bad people.

So yeah, shun these motherfuckers. Shun them good. And those who go beyond being BAD PEOPLE, who actually make it possible to do bad things? Well. Play this for them at high volume:

Because no, they don’t deserve to live in peace. Because people who make children cry for nothing that the child himself did are BAD PEOPLE. And bad people don’t deserve courtesy, respect, or peace.

– Badtux the Vicious Penguin

Read Full Post »

ICE is transferring 1,600 people detained pending administrative removal to Federal prisons. Note that these people have not been arrested. The term “arrest” means that they’ve been charged with a crime. Instead, they’ve been detained, pending appearance before an administrative law judge who will rule whether they are subject to removal or not.

This is not a trivial distinction. You cannot place someone into a Federal prison unless they have been indicted for a crime, or have been convicted of a crime. These immigrants have not been indicted for a crime — they haven’t been charged with a crime at all, because that would require the Federal government to provide them with a lawyer and due process rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, which requires due process and provision of a lawyer if you’re going to charge someone with a crime. Instead, they have been scheduled to appear before an administrative law judge pending administrative removal, which gets around that whole Constitution thing by *not* being a punishment, it’s just returning the person back to where they came from. The administrative detention in a civilian detention facility is not a punishment, it’s part of a removal process wherein people who have been cited for being here without authorization are temporarily held pending their hearing. They can waive their hearing and be removed immediately, so under the law they’re there voluntarily.

But that’s a civilian detention facility, which, I might point out, is not a prison and is not a punishment for a crime. A prison is a prison and is a punishment for a crime. Punishing someone by putting them in prison without an indictment, lawyer, or due process is a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the Constitution, which applies, I might remind you, to *all* people on US soil regardless of their citizenship (the Supremes have ruled on this repeatedly). But I guess the Constitution is just a piece of paper as far as the regime of Orange Julius Caesar is concerned.

— Badtux the Constitutional Penguin

Read Full Post »

At least, that’s what his lawyer Gooniani says, and what he has tweeted.

Methinks that Mad King Trump’s role model is this:

Except King Joffrey was less petulant.

Apparently “it’s not illegal if the President does it” has become the guiding principle of Republican rule. Huh. Why am I not surprised.

— Badtux the “Was he elected President, or King?” Penguin

Read Full Post »

So, Cheetoh Mussolini tweeted that it wasn’t him separating children from their mothers at the border. It was them mean Democrats and laws they’d passed. That is, of course, a bald-faced lie. So: What *IS* the truth, anyhow? Does the law require separating children from parents suspected of illegal immigration at the border?

A: No. Parents who are apprehended at the border are detained pending administrative deportation. They are not being jailed or put into prison, because they are not being charged with a crime. There is no law stating that children and parents cannot be detained in the same location.

CBP deliberately does not charge immigrants apprehended at the border with a crime, because being charged with a crime triggers Constitutional protections. Specifically, the Constitution guarantees a right to indictment by a grand jury, right to an attorney, and the right to a trial by jury for all Federal criminal charges. An administrative proceeding, on the other hand, can occur before a magistrate judge in an administrative hearing and incurs no right to a trial by jury, because the immigrant is not being punished, the immigrant is simply being removed back to where he/she came. CBP would rather not be tied down with having to put together grand juries and trials by jury and find lawyers for all these immigrants. Especially the lawyer part. They prefer their immigrants to be unrepresented by a lawyer, because that makes it easier to conduct a show trial whose sole goal is to deport the immigrant as swiftly as possible. Having to deal with a real trial in front of a jury in a Federal court, as vs a hearing before a magistrate judge, would bring the whole process to a standstill.

In cases where an immigrant is charged with a crime and is punished by being placed in jail or prison, children must be removed and placed with child protective services or a relative. That is because the Constitution does not allow jailing or imprisoning someone unless they have been charged with or convicted of a crime, and in general the children have neither been charged with nor convicted of a crime. This isn’t a law that Democrats passed. This is the Constitution. But as pointed out above, immigrants detained at the border aren’t being charged with a crime, they’re merely being held for administrative deportation. Being administratively detained has nothing to do with being punished, thus it’s perfectly legal for a child to be placed with a mother who is administratively detained. These detention camps may *look* like jails, but, legally, they are not.

So that’s the truth of the matter — there is no, zero, law requiring that children of parents who are being administratively detained be separated from those parents. This is because administrative detention is not a punishment, under the law. It is merely the temporary housing of those who are waiting for an administrative removal proceeding. In fact, until recently it was policy that women and children be placed together in ICE family detention facilities while waiting for their immigration hearings. It is only recently that a deliberate policy of ripping apart families and sending off the kids to foster care was instituted — a policy resulting in over 1500 children who cannot be located, children who may or may not be safe with relatives, who may or may not have been sold to the highest bidder via child trafficking.

– Badtux the Immigration Penguin

Read Full Post »

So, you have the former director of the FBI saying this:

“I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013,” Comey said. “It’s possible, but I don’t know.”

And you have the news media following the aftermath of the raid on Twitler’s lawyer’s office, allegations that his fellow oligarchs paid off former mistresses, and so forth.

What to do, what to do….

Oh yeah, that thing.

So, Cheeto Mussolini fired off $224M worth of Tomahawk missiles at Syria to distract from all the bad news coming out about him. Meanwhile, Flint, Michigan, needs only $55M to replace its pipes so it’s no longer poisoning children.

But apparently a dictator poisoning his own people somewhere overseas is more important than our own children getting poisoned. Make America first! TruMp! tRump! TrUMp!

Yeah, are we tired of all this winning yet?

Read Full Post »

So, a prosecutor raids an attorney’s office. What, exactly, can he seize from there?

First of all, he cannot seize any documents protected by attorney-client privilege. No contracts, no transcripts, no tape recordings, no confidential work product. So what’s left?

Financial documents, primarily. How much was he paid. How did he handle client escrow funds, did he embezzle them for his own purposes? (Lots of attorneys have been sent to prison for embezzling client escrow funds). *EVIDENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING* such as a foreign client putting an unduly large amount of money into an escrow fund and then the attorney disbursing it to entities controlled by a different client in order to launder its origins.

In short, embezzlement and money laundering are pretty much the *only* reasons a lawyer’s office would be raided. So Donald Trump’s lawyer’s office got raided? How many Russian clients did this lawyer have, and how much money did he disburse from these Russian clients’ escrow funds in order to benefit the Trump campaign?

That’s the *real* questions, not anything to do with Stormy Daniels — unless the question is, “was her payoff made with laundered Russian money?”. But nobody would issue a warrant if it was *just* Stormy Daniels. Someone in the New York US Attorney’s Office thinks Trump’s lawyer was laundering money from foreign sources in order to benefit the Trump campaign (which, I might add, is illegal), and any records seized will be financial records related directly to that question. The salacious details of the various contracts that Trump’s lawyer signed with various women he sexually assaulted over the years will just have to remain secret — unless Cohen runs out of money and sells those details to the highest bidder, of course.

— Badtux the Law Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »