Ryan retweetledi
@NormEisen So, an attorney who was just referred to the Bar for improper behavior is now being considered for the country’s top position as Attorney General.
Only in this GOP could that be true. Make that make sense.
English
Ryan
4.8K posts
Ryan
@Ryry356
A fun-loving serious introvert who has his Mom to thank for helping shape me into a better person.
Queens, NY Katılım Ekim 2021
2K Takip Edilen186 Takipçiler
Ryan retweetledi
The part of Judge Williams' order that should be getting more attention: Trump & the Govt. can’t claim they reached a settlement in this case, in any legal proceeding, ever
Not in court, not in arbitration, not before any agency
Blanche built a deal the courts won’t touch👇-TN
USA TODAY@USATODAY
Opinion: Here is how President Trump's scam, engineered by acting AG Todd Blanche, came to be and then went off the rails. usatoday.com/story/opinion/…
English
Ryan retweetledi
Guy who doesn’t know the difference between allegedly collusive behavior with an adverse party and literally suing yourself (the examples with Obama are also bad! But they’re not the same!)
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Disagree. Everything the court says about what justifies sanctions can be said about the various collusive settlements from Obama and Biden. The only difference here is that the Trump litigation was nakedly collusive. Example 1.: Obama giving $3 billion to plaintiffs that the courts had said they’re not entitled to in the Cobell litigation, including $100 million in fees for attorneys, including big bundlers for Obama. How is that any less collusive? Example 2: Garcia v Vilsack is even more on point. Created a fund for a bunch of claimants who never even filed claims! Class action status had been denied. So they literally created a fund to pay for favored constituencies, even though they had no viable legal claims of their own. How is that any less collusive? Seems almost exactly what happened here. You can hear more here: youtu.be/CUtoz5DXlKU
English
Ryan retweetledi
Judge Williams, in the original Trump v. IRS case orders the clerk of court to send her decision to the state bar committee investigating ethics allegations against Todd Blanche, even as he is sitting for a confirmation to be AG beginning tomorrow. Only Trump would keep a nominee like this in place. He’s found his Roy Cohn. joycevance.substack.com/p/judge-is-a-b…
English
Ryan retweetledi
Ryan retweetledi
@ReichlinMelnick Thank you. It’s hard to argue with such an individual. He keeps moving the goalpost. Just pure erroneous whattaboutism.
English
Ryan retweetledi
You are AGAIN are refusing to acknowledge that the core issue here is that the President filed a lawsuit against himself that all parties knew was frivolous, time-barred, and not adverse.
No attempt to turn that orange into an apple will work. x.com/ilan_wurman/st…
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
The amazing thing is I am not even defending the anti-weaponization fund. I am against imposing sanctions on one side for actions at the other side does all the time. And my posts have forced many on the left to defend the collusive Obama settlements, even though they effectively suffer from the same defects. But it requires careful understanding to see that, not rank partisanship.
English
Ryan retweetledi
So you admit, very clearly, that Garcia was NOT a "sue and settle." It was a contested lawsuit fought in court for many years that eventually led to a settlement. And even if you think that settlement was BS, that is not *remotely* like what happened here. x.com/ilan_wurman/st…
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Garcia litigated for a decade — and lost every step of the way. Didn’t stop the Obama administration from creating a settlement fund even for those who never filed their own claims (and such claims would almost certainly be time barred). Who’s omitting key facts? The question is one of *sanctions* for certain behavior. The Garcia litigation settled because the Obama administration stopped serving its role as an adverse party. Just like here. Why are you defending it? Why are you so quick to send Republican lawyers to the state bars but not your own side?
English
Ryan retweetledi
You're being dishonest again! The court's sanctions were because the lawsuit was "brought for an improper purpose."
The Cobell plaintiffs and the Garcia plaintiffs, regardless of what you think of the strength of their claims, believed they had a case. x.com/ilan_wurman/st…
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Trump’s mistake apparently was not colluding with private litigants, losing in court for a decade, and then settling with a future JD Vance administration
English
Ryan retweetledi
Finally, you claim everything the Court said justified sanctions can be said about previous cases.
You know that's not true, because you highlight the line that Trump's lawsuit was "brought for an improper purpose" — which CAN'T be said about the others! x.com/ilan_wurman/st…
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Disagree. Everything the court says about what justifies sanctions can be said about the various collusive settlements from Obama and Biden. The only difference here is that the Trump litigation was nakedly collusive. Example 1.: Obama giving $3 billion to plaintiffs that the courts had said they’re not entitled to in the Cobell litigation, including $100 million in fees for attorneys, including big bundlers for Obama. How is that any less collusive? Example 2: Garcia v Vilsack is even more on point. Created a fund for a bunch of claimants who never even filed claims! Class action status had been denied. So they literally created a fund to pay for favored constituencies, even though they had no viable legal claims of their own. How is that any less collusive? Seems almost exactly what happened here. You can hear more here: youtu.be/CUtoz5DXlKU
English
Ryan retweetledi
Nonsense. Obama's choice to settle a few lawsuits after 10+ years of litigation is not even remotely a slippery slope to the President suing himself and ordering DOJ, run by his personal lawyer, to settle for $1.776 billion and immunity from tax audits. x.com/Aaron_A_A/stat…
Aaron@Aaron_A_A
@ReichlinMelnick Problem with slippery slopes is they are slippery. Trump’s actions are the foreseeable and foreseen consequences of Obama’s actions. Nobody will show restraint and I expect the next Dem president to embrace and replicate what Trump did. And Dem judges will go along with it.
English
Ryan retweetledi
Even your comparison omits key facts:
- In Cobell, after the settlement was reached, Congress passed legislation funding the $3.4 billion. It didn't come from the general litigation fund.
- Garcia was litigated by DOJ for over a DECADE before settlement!
x.com/ilan_wurman/st…
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Disagree. Everything the court says about what justifies sanctions can be said about the various collusive settlements from Obama and Biden. The only difference here is that the Trump litigation was nakedly collusive. Example 1.: Obama giving $3 billion to plaintiffs that the courts had said they’re not entitled to in the Cobell litigation, including $100 million in fees for attorneys, including big bundlers for Obama. How is that any less collusive? Example 2: Garcia v Vilsack is even more on point. Created a fund for a bunch of claimants who never even filed claims! Class action status had been denied. So they literally created a fund to pay for favored constituencies, even though they had no viable legal claims of their own. How is that any less collusive? Seems almost exactly what happened here. You can hear more here: youtu.be/CUtoz5DXlKU
English
Ryan retweetledi
Because you persist in pretending not to see (indeed have not even acknowledged) the glaringly obvious difference between an admin settling a lawsuit after years of contested litigation and suing oneself and "settling" before DOJ even enters an appearance.
x.com/ilan_wurman/st…
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
What’s dishonest about it Aaron? I lay out the facts for each. You can explain why the comparison doesn’t hold, but I’m not sure how that makes it dishonest. If you read the parts of the opinion justifying sanctions, it applies exactly to these other collusive suits. I don’t see much of a difference between democrat-aligned interest groups making legally unmeritorious claims and settling with a Democrat administration and what Trump is doing here except the nakedness of the collusiveness, which is the difference I already highlighted.
English
Ryan retweetledi
An extraordinarily dishonest take on the weaponization lawsuit.
He’s comparing lawsuits brought by external plaintiffs and fought in court for years before settlement with Trump suing himself through a nakedly collusive suit brought outside the statute of limitations.
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Disagree. Everything the court says about what justifies sanctions can be said about the various collusive settlements from Obama and Biden. The only difference here is that the Trump litigation was nakedly collusive. Example 1.: Obama giving $3 billion to plaintiffs that the courts had said they’re not entitled to in the Cobell litigation, including $100 million in fees for attorneys, including big bundlers for Obama. How is that any less collusive? Example 2: Garcia v Vilsack is even more on point. Created a fund for a bunch of claimants who never even filed claims! Class action status had been denied. So they literally created a fund to pay for favored constituencies, even though they had no viable legal claims of their own. How is that any less collusive? Seems almost exactly what happened here. You can hear more here: youtu.be/CUtoz5DXlKU
English
Ryan retweetledi
I only psychoanalyze people who I find interesting. Don’t assume that’s you just because I say I’m in school to be a therapist lol
English
Ryan retweetledi
The President does not have constitutional authority to declare a federal election invalid.
The U.S. Constitution assigns the administration of elections primarily to the states. Article I, Section 4 (the Elections Clause) provides that the "Times, Places and Manner" of congressional elections are prescribed by the state legislatures, subject to Congress's authority to alter those regulations.
The Constitution grants the President no authority to administer, cancel, delay, invalidate, or overturn elections. Congress establishes the date for choosing presidential electors and the date on which they cast their votes, while states conduct elections under their own laws. Election disputes are resolved through state election procedures and the courts, with Congress playing a limited constitutional role in counting electoral votes pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment and the procedures established by federal law.
Accordingly, any attempt by a President to unilaterally invalidate an election or override state election laws would have no constitutional basis and would be subject to judicial review.
#Georgia
#Elections
#DonaldTrump
#gapol
English
@kendonnelly @AbhiKambli1984 Defend against the lawsuit. The IRS had numerous defenses against this suit. Moreover, lawsuits against the government are often dismissed because you can’t sue the government for most things. Therefore, the latter point you mentioned, while relevant, doesn’t mean a big payday.
English
@kendonnelly @AbhiKambli1984 I disagree. I’ve read court documents. Settlements involve different parties. The IRS leak wasn’t ideal, but the IRS had wanted to defend the lawsuit. It was a collusive lawsuit and not worth the amount it was sued for. It’s even more problematic that he acknowledged it.
English
Not only is this judge’s order wildly incorrect in the merits, its logical conclusion would lead to dangerous results. I don’t expect much of this to have lasting effect but I will break down what’s wrong with the decision below.
Ilan Wurman@ilan_wurman
Wait, sue and settle is now bar-discipline worthy? If so, all the Obama and Biden lawyers are in big trouble. Just kidding. These rules apply only to Trump and his lawyers.
English
Ryan retweetledi