Just more Trump bullshit. See, he simply announced that he was going to appoint them, but he didn’t really appoint them until…it’s not smart to lie to a Federal judge, but they do it anyway.
When caught, never ever admit the truth … to anyone.
Foir some reason the whole dump team thinks they can act with impunity . I really wonder why???
DoJ is simply corrupt.
At least they’ve stopped pretending to be impartial, so there’s that.
In keeping with well established administration policy, von Spakovsky and Adams were only acting members of the commission. It gives Trump more flexibility to assure the outcome he wants.
Because IOKIYAR
So do the records, emails, whatever show that Adams and King were “in the loop” like Spakovsky before they were “officially appointed”? It would make their appointment de facto.
Edited to fix my spelling. :sigh:
If they were getting commission-only email or consulting on the composition of the committee as “private citizens” that’s a whole different set of corrupt acts from the ones we already know about.
I object to the phrase “government claims” in these reports. I demand the word “junta” be used until a duly elected democratic government is installed to replace this cabal.
My question is as a legal and practice matter, at what point do judges admit evidence of lying in other matters in the matter before the bar? I mean at some point when considering the arguments, if one side has a history of presenting false and misleading testimony in other cases it should affect how the trier of fact weighs the veracity of that sides assertion of the facts.
Noting that I am not a trial lawyer but my wife is, what any trial lawyer and trial judges I know will say is that the most important asset a litigant and their attorney have is credibility and once that credibility is gone, the litigant will almost always lose. Furthermore, well in most cases the litigant only has one case to worry about, for the attorney that loss of credibility may follow them around.
So at some point, the Trump administrations lying both in public and in arguments and factual presentations before a court should result in the other sides facts being accepted with little regard to Trump’s presentations of facts because Trump has a history of providing false or “alternative facts”.
I though Von Spakovsky was doing that for months so it would be worth a look.
They lie. They just lie. They ignore proof of what they don’t like and simply lie.
Hey, no biggie if Spankofsky and Adams were thick as thieves with Kobach before they were even formally installed on the commission.
After all, the whole Trump team was conducting clandestine foreign policy while somebody else was still the President.
I guess I don’t quite understand the significance of what date the formal appointments were made. Clearly the commission was set up to arrive at certain pre-conceived conclusions favoring the suppression of certain kinds of voters. Kobach and Von Spakowsky are notorious for their doubletalk about “fraud.” I don’t know Adams. But any commission starting with these names is bound to present preconceived opinions as fact and resist any information that goes counter to their opinion. And Von Spakowsky’s e-mail about trying to exclude people with different views just clinches this impression. The gentleman from Maine may or may not have understood what was going on when he was appointed.
What does this do to the liability of all of Trump’s acting appointees? And since they are only acting, how do they actually have the constitutional authority to do whatever they do?