• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:58 PM
    That's because it was already owned by the United States. South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter to the federal government in 1836. https://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false
    46 replies | 597 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:12 AM
    All she said in her confirmation hearing is that she'd "consider" taxing unrealized capital gains; it wasn't a proposal. Such a rule is already in place for securities dealers, but it's totally impractical for average investors and has zero chances of being passed.
    27 replies | 223 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-18-2021, 09:00 AM
    The reason this lying POS doesn’t talk about it is because it’s a totally bogus theory. Notice that Rose never points to anything in the Constitution that exempts any kind of income from taxation. He goes on and on bloviating about the regulation’s reference to income that’s not constitutionally taxable, but he conveniently never gives an example. But there’s a very good reason for that – there is no example. There used to be examples, but not because of any specific language in the Constitution. What happened was that beginning in the 19th century the Supreme Court held that certain kinds of income were exempt from federal taxation because of the federalism structure of the Constitution. In a series of cases the Court held that Congress couldn’t tax such things as the income earned by the States, the salaries of state employees, or interest on state and local obligations. The idea was that taxing such items would unduly interfere with the States’ governmental functioning. The drafters of the regulation Rose cites obviously had these decisions in mind, and when the regulation was promulgated interest on state and local obligations was still exempt. But what Rose never mentions is that all of these prior decisions were overruled by the Court itself, the last instance occurring in South Carolina v. Baker, 85 U.S. 505 (1988), in which the Court held that interest income from state and local obligations could be subject to federal taxation. So since 1988 there is no kind of income that’s constitutionally exempt except certain income earned by state and local governments. He also misrepresents the regulation under Section 861 as somehow exempting some income from taxation. It doesn’t.
    414 replies | 47410 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2021, 04:33 PM
    He addressed it directly in his phone call with Trump. When Trump asked, "And Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? They put them in three times." Raffensperger replied, "Mr. President, they did not put that - we did an audit of that and we proved conclusively they were not scanned three times." Regarding the observers, the SoS said that the staff, not the observers, were told they would be discontinuing the counting at 10 and would resume in the morning. The observers then likely went home on their own accord (why stick around?). Of course, you probably think that this was done intentionally just to get rid of the observers so they could resume the nefarious counting after they'd left. But the Trumpers have never been able to explain why a pro-Trump Republican Governor, a pro-Trump Republican Secretary of State, and a pro-Trump Republican chief operating officer would have allowed this or any of the other alleged fraudulent actions to happen.
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2021, 12:47 PM
    A lot of people don't want to examine Trump's claims for fear they'll discover that they've been had.
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2021, 10:40 AM
    He and the Trump campaign claimed that the containers of ballots pulled from under the tables had been added in secret, when in fact they were sealed and placed under the tables in full view of the monitors. So it wasn't just a case of there being a lack of evidence to support a Trumpian claim; the actual evidence was to the contrary.
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 08:24 PM
    But if all this is true (and I'm not saying it is), why was it necessary for Guiliani and his cohorts to lie about the edited video?
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 06:42 PM
    When an agency is is given increased responsibilities but is underbudgeted and understaffed because its funding has been reduced, it's not incompetence and poor service should not be surprising.
    26 replies | 682 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 06:29 PM
    I suggest you watch this piece, in which the chief operating officer for the Secretary of State (a Republican and Trump voter) explains exactly what happened, contrary to the lies put out by Trump's people. Watch the video at the top and the one marked "Sterling refutes election conspiracy". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-60-minutes-2021-01-10/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-60-minutes-2021-01-10/
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 04:28 PM
    If your last name is Trump or Kushner, it's free.
    12 replies | 392 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 03:13 PM
    The January 6 date, as well as the objection procedure, comes from the Electoral Count Act, 3 USC § 15.
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 03:09 PM
    Well for starters, I think if a Trump toady like William Barr says there was no widespread fraud, there wasn't any. Of course, this won't satisfy those who think Barr is a Deep State mole, but there's no reasoning with such people. Here's a point-by-point refutation of the claims Trump made in his phone call with Secretary Raffensperger: https://sos.ga.gov/admin/uploads/Letter%20to%20Congress%20from%20Secretary%20Raffensperger%20(1-6-21).pdf Trump's claims of a stolen election have a 100% failure rate in court. But don't think that all of the courts dismissed the claims on procedural grounds. In Nevada, for example, a trial court ruled that there was "no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” The ruling was affirmed by a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court. An Arizona court found that the evidence presented "did not prove illegal votes, much less enough to affect the outcome of the election” and that "The court finds no fraud, no misconduct, and no effect on the outcome of the election...Plaintiff has not proven that the Biden/Harris ticket did not receive the highest number of votes.” And when given the opportunity to present evidence in a Georgia court, the Trump team voluntarily withdrew its suit the day before the hearing was to occur. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/trump_legal_team_folds https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-drops-georgia-lawsuit-overturn-biden-win And when Trump's legal team resorted to presenting highly-edited and misleading video to Georgia Senators instead of honest evidence, you can bet there was nothing to support their claims. If Giuliani was aware of the edited video's mischaracterization of events, he should be disbarred.
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 11:12 AM
    It’s precisely because conduct warranting impeachment doesn’t need to constitute criminal conduct that the charge against Trump makes sense. While his January 6 speech, standing alone, probably doesn’t amount to inciting insurrection under the criminal statute, his actions preceding the speech coupled with it certainly amounts to impeachable conduct. Here’s the entire impeachment article (emphasis is mine): Additional conduct not specifically mentioned in the Article but clearly encompassed by the phrase “his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” (and also alluded to by Trump in his speech) was his effort to have Pence not accept certified electoral votes from certain states, something Pence had absolutely no authority to do under the Constitution. Fortunately, Pence had the integrity to recognize this and to send a letter to Congress on January 6 in which he explained he has no such authority, thereby causing some of the rioters to scream for his death. There is no question that Trump's conduct warranted impeachment.
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 05:19 PM
    Most legal scholars agree with that position. https://apnews.com/article/a4ac94cbde7e34c953dce82d0f60d0a4
    174 replies | 3419 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 12:26 PM
    Given that Trump has a long history of stiffing people including dishwashers, bartenders, plumbers, and painters, the probability approaches certainty. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
    13 replies | 448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 11:24 AM
    One person with experience with Trump had advice for Giuliani:
    13 replies | 448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 09:45 AM
    Trump is refusing to pay Giuliani's legal bills. No one should be surprised. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/14/trump-refusing-to-pay-rudy-giuliani-legal-fees-after-falling-out
    13 replies | 448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 08:05 AM
    The dual-sovereignty rule also applies to civilians. If someone commits an act that's a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried by both sovereigns and there's no double jeopardy. See U.S. v Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922). Federal law has carved out a few exceptions involving carriers -- e.g., 18 USC §§ 659, 660, 1992, and 2117. The two-thirds threshold was changed to three-fourths in 2019. See UCMJ Art. 52(a)(3) (10 USC § 852(a)(3))
    16 replies | 597 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 07:44 AM
    If Brooks' followers are gullible enough to believe all the lies about a "stolen election", they're probably gullible enough to believe he was referring to a donkey. Seriously, that's an unbelievably pathetic attempt by Brooks to cover his butt.
    29 replies | 813 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2021, 08:09 PM
    Maybe he heard the speech of Mo Brooks (a true scumbag and traitor to his oath), who said "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass" and figured he didn't want to be in the middle of a riot.
    29 replies | 813 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2021, 06:42 PM
    So why didn't he march down Pennsylvania Avenue with them?
    29 replies | 813 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2021, 10:06 AM
    Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, who hadn't been convicted of anything.
    34 replies | 734 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2021, 09:59 AM
    "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president". King (in his own mind) Donald Trump, July 23, 2019.
    16 replies | 597 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2021, 08:11 AM
    Not necessarily. For example, in a jury trial in a civilian court it takes a unanimous vote to convict, and if unanimity isn't obtained a mistrial is declared and the accused can be retried. In a court martial it takes only a three-fourths vote to convict, but if the vote is less than that the accused is acquitted.
    16 replies | 597 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-12-2021, 03:35 PM
    It has another purpose: tarnishing Trump's legacy. Image means a lot to Trump, but if he goes down in history as a twice-impeached one-term President his image won't amount to much. I wish there were a separate article relating to his infamous phone call with Raffensperger, which by any standard was a solicitation to commit election fraud.
    44 replies | 1268 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2021, 03:52 PM
    I know of no other sitting President who (a) incited an insurrection and told those who had invaded the Capitol that they were loved, (b) threatened a state election official if he didn't fraudulently change the state's election results, (c) wanted his Vice President to commit an unlawful act by rejecting certified electoral votes, (d) continually promoted false claims about a stolen election that his own Attorney General said were unsupported, (e) filed a slough of baseless lawsuits to contest an election he lost, and (f) lied, lied, lied (all President have lied, but not to the extent Trump has). His has disgraced his office and done everything he could to foster division in the country. Rand Paul got it right once. It's a shame he didn't stick to his initial assessment but became a Trump enabler instead. "I’m thinking, how did we get the race for the most important office in the free world to sink to such depths, and how could anyone in my party think that this clown is fit to be president?” September 28, 2015. "I do think Donald Trump would be a disaster for the country and a disaster for our party” September 3, 2015. “Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag” January 25, 2016.
    27 replies | 653 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2021, 02:56 PM
    And part of the law is the issue of standing. 7 and perhaps all 9 Justices were of the opinion that Texas had no standing to complain about other States' alleged failure to comply with their own election laws (although AG Paxton didn't seem concerned about allegations that Texas didn't comply with its own). The case could also have been dismissed on the ground of undue delay (laches). Filed the day before the safe-harbor deadline, the case was nothing more than an 11th hour stunt by an AG seeking Trump's favor (and perhaps a possible pardon). The case was so flimsy that the Texas Solicitor General declined to sign on.
    26 replies | 804 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2021, 11:43 AM
    Why single out Roberts? Six other Justices, including 3 Trump appointees, didn't want to hear the case.
    26 replies | 804 view(s)
More Activity
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,106
Posts Per Day
0.66
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:00 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 56 1231151 ... LastLast

01-21-2021


01-20-2021


01-16-2021


01-15-2021


01-14-2021



Page 1 of 56 1231151 ... LastLast