1) The "Jim Eagle" thing was weird as hell. I actually began searching the term "Jim Eagle" thinking maybe there was some bigoted 1800's Senator with that name. But nope, it's just a bigger bird than a crow. So what's he saying? That voter suppression (Jim Eagle) is a bigger problem than public lynchings/hangings (Jim Crow)?
2) I actually like his idea of going back to the "old school" way of filibusters where the guy has to stand there and talk without stopping. It's funny in an "old man yelling at the clouds" sort of way.
3) Come on, take a question from the Fox News guy.
4) Strangely, no questions on Covid.
Jim eagle was funny, because it made me think what you just said. Made me scratch my head. Not surprised he didn't take a question from Fox, and I'm okay with that. The odd thing to me was the people he did call on looked scripted. He just read a name from a list and looked around to see where he/she was. Reminds me of taking attendance on the first day of school. Is that normal, I don't remember others doing that. Which made me wonder if you had to submit your question to get approved to be on the list some how? Which would be incredibly dumb and pointless if that was the case. But why else just call questions from a list of names that you don't know who they are?
So you're saying they are colluding? He also didn't call on NPR and NYT, if I'm not mistaken.
1) The "Jim Eagle" thing was weird as hell. I actually began searching the term "Jim Eagle" thinking maybe there was some bigoted 1800's Senator with that name. But nope, it's just a bigger bird than a crow. So what's he saying? That voter suppression (Jim Eagle) is a bigger problem than public lynchings/hangings (Jim Crow)?
2) I actually like his idea of going back to the "old school" way of filibusters where the guy has to stand there and talk without stopping. It's funny in an "old man yelling at the clouds" sort of way.
3) Come on, take a question from the Fox News guy.
4) Strangely, no questions on Covid.
Jim eagle was funny, because it made me think what you just said. Made me scratch my head. Not surprised he didn't take a question from Fox, and I'm okay with that. The odd thing to me was the people he did call on looked scripted. He just read a name from a list and looked around to see where he/she was. Reminds me of taking attendance on the first day of school. Is that normal, I don't remember others doing that. Which made me wonder if you had to submit your question to get approved to be on the list some how? Which would be incredibly dumb and pointless if that was the case. But why else just call questions from a list of names that you don't know who they are?
So you're saying they are colluding? He also didn't call on NPR and NYT, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm just saying I don't recall seeing that before. He appeared to be reading from a list of predetermined names when calling on people for questions, it looked odd. I was just speculating as to a possible reason why, I don't know.
Are these doctored photos, or is this common practice for politicians? I honestly don’t know. It would make sense if you were going to deal with a bunch of press you don’t necessarily know. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t know that I remember GWB, Obama or Slick Willie using something like this, but back then the Republican Party wasn’t constantly trying to make ageist attacks or sow a campaign that a politician was playing without a full bag of marbles?
Are these doctored photos, or is this common practice for politicians? I honestly don’t know. It would make sense if you were going to deal with a bunch of press you don’t necessarily know. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t know that I remember GWB, Obama or Slick Willie using something like this, but back then the Republican Party wasn’t constantly trying to make ageist attacks or sow a campaign that a politician was playing without a full bag of marbles?
Few things.. first Jen Psaki and press secy's develop close relationships with the correspondents over the 4-8 years. They obviously speak every day and travel together. The president does not develop those name/face connections nearly as quickly (obviously). they usually do by the end of 8 years especially the ones that work the big outlets. I can tell you that I would need that cheat sheet for at least 4 years. I suck at names and faces. People introduce themselves and it's gone instantly. I had a dinner on Tuesday night and talked to 3 people for two hours, after being in a room with them (and others) for 8 hours. Couldn't remember two of their names.
Are these doctored photos, or is this common practice for politicians? I honestly don’t know. It would make sense if you were going to deal with a bunch of press you don’t necessarily know. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t know that I remember GWB, Obama or Slick Willie using something like this, but back then the Republican Party wasn’t constantly trying to make ageist attacks or sow a campaign that a politician was playing without a full bag of marbles?
Few things.. first Jen Psaki and press secy's develop close relationships with the correspondents over the 4-8 years. They obviously speak every day and travel together. The president does not develop those name/face connections nearly as quickly (obviously). they usually do by the end of 8 years especially the ones that work the big outlets. I can tell you that I would need that cheat sheet for at least 4 years. I suck at names and faces. People introduce themselves and it's gone instantly. I had a dinner on Tuesday night and talked to 3 people for two hours, after being in a room with them (and others) for 8 hours. Couldn't remember two of their names.
Very good info and if I may add the President usually has a seating schematic as the reporters sit in the same seat for every press briefing and conference.
Are these doctored photos, or is this common practice for politicians? I honestly don’t know. It would make sense if you were going to deal with a bunch of press you don’t necessarily know. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t know that I remember GWB, Obama or Slick Willie using something like this, but back then the Republican Party wasn’t constantly trying to make ageist attacks or sow a campaign that a politician was playing without a full bag of marbles?
Few things.. first Jen Psaki and press secy's develop close relationships with the correspondents over the 4-8 years. They obviously speak every day and travel together. The president does not develop those name/face connections nearly as quickly (obviously). they usually do by the end of 8 years especially the ones that work the big outlets. I can tell you that I would need that cheat sheet for at least 4 years. I suck at names and faces. People introduce themselves and it's gone instantly. I had a dinner on Tuesday night and talked to 3 people for two hours, after being in a room with them (and others) for 8 hours. Couldn't remember two of their names.
Very good info and if I may add the President usually has a seating schematic as the reporters sit in the same seat for every press briefing and conference.
People are always coming up to my family when we're out walking the dogs and talking to us like we know them. Finally when they leave, I ask my wife, "Who the fuck was that!?!?" She usually knows who they are and is often exasperated that I don't.
I start my first day as a little league coach tomorrow. First order of business: Everybody's name is Buddy.
Are these doctored photos, or is this common practice for politicians? I honestly don’t know. It would make sense if you were going to deal with a bunch of press you don’t necessarily know. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t know that I remember GWB, Obama or Slick Willie using something like this, but back then the Republican Party wasn’t constantly trying to make ageist attacks or sow a campaign that a politician was playing without a full bag of marbles?
Few things.. first Jen Psaki and press secy's develop close relationships with the correspondents over the 4-8 years. They obviously speak every day and travel together. The president does not develop those name/face connections nearly as quickly (obviously). they usually do by the end of 8 years especially the ones that work the big outlets. I can tell you that I would need that cheat sheet for at least 4 years. I suck at names and faces. People introduce themselves and it's gone instantly. I had a dinner on Tuesday night and talked to 3 people for two hours, after being in a room with them (and others) for 8 hours. Couldn't remember two of their names.
Very good info and if I may add the President usually has a seating schematic as the reporters sit in the same seat for every press briefing and conference.
People are always coming up to my family when we're out walking the dogs and talking to us like we know them. Finally when they leave, I ask my wife, "Who the fuck was that!?!?" She usually knows who they are and is often exasperated that I don't.
I start my first day as a little league coach tomorrow. First order of business: Everybody's name is Buddy.
Haha, I did that as well as a coach. Chief works too. My wife is the same way on dog walking. I'm always like "do we know them"? She not only knows them, but knows their kids names, dogs names, ages, everything. I'm lost.
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
Are these doctored photos, or is this common practice for politicians? I honestly don’t know. It would make sense if you were going to deal with a bunch of press you don’t necessarily know. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t know that I remember GWB, Obama or Slick Willie using something like this, but back then the Republican Party wasn’t constantly trying to make ageist attacks or sow a campaign that a politician was playing without a full bag of marbles?
Few things.. first Jen Psaki and press secy's develop close relationships with the correspondents over the 4-8 years. They obviously speak every day and travel together. The president does not develop those name/face connections nearly as quickly (obviously). they usually do by the end of 8 years especially the ones that work the big outlets. I can tell you that I would need that cheat sheet for at least 4 years. I suck at names and faces. People introduce themselves and it's gone instantly. I had a dinner on Tuesday night and talked to 3 people for two hours, after being in a room with them (and others) for 8 hours. Couldn't remember two of their names.
I figured it was much ado about nothing, just wanted to hear y’all’s opinions as it seems to be a pretty big news story.
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Lol. Especially considering the only reason Trump did the interview yesterday was to respond to the press conference.
But it is okay. His people who invaded the Capitol presented zero risk. They were hugging and kissing the police officer's that day.
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Lol. Especially considering the only reason Trump did the interview yesterday was to respond to the press conference.
But it is okay. His people who invaded the Capitol presented zero risk. They were hugging and kissing the police officer's that day.
WHAT A CONTRAST. It's really unbelievable.
maybe the ones that were not murdering or beating the shit out of police were hugging and kissing them. but not all were hugging or kissing the police.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Its ok with me. It just seemed you weren't okay with people discussing Biden with a response of "And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?", especially when this is a Biden thread. This isn't a thread about Trump or the siege, I see nothing wrong with talking about Biden in the Biden thread. At this point we should be more concerned about Biden than what Trump says, Biden is the president now.
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Its ok with me. It just seemed you weren't okay with people discussing Biden with a response of "And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?", especially when this is a Biden thread. This isn't a thread about Trump or the siege, I see nothing wrong with talking about Biden in the Biden thread. At this point we should be more concerned about Biden than what Trump says, Biden is the president now.
Except that the hope lies in that those who are criticizing President Biden would have been as critical or more so of POOTWH and his party’s current policies but are oddly silent. OMG, President Biden looked at a list of names at his first press conference, how weird!
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Its ok with me. It just seemed you weren't okay with people discussing Biden with a response of "And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?", especially when this is a Biden thread. This isn't a thread about Trump or the siege, I see nothing wrong with talking about Biden in the Biden thread. At this point we should be more concerned about Biden than what Trump says, Biden is the president now.
trump has never conceded and is still spreading the big lie that the election was stolen from him. he said it on the ingraham show LAST NIGHT.
we should not have to go between 2 threads when the former guy is still saying he was robbed of re-election.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Did you hear POOTWH’s description of the Capitol siege on faux last night? And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?
I haven't paid attention to anything Trump has said since 1/20. Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
I related it as a contrast and compare. Is that okay?
Its ok with me. It just seemed you weren't okay with people discussing Biden with a response of "And some here are concerned about President Biden’s news conference? Holy fuck sticks is there no hope for this nation?", especially when this is a Biden thread. This isn't a thread about Trump or the siege, I see nothing wrong with talking about Biden in the Biden thread. At this point we should be more concerned about Biden than what Trump says, Biden is the president now.
trump has never conceded and is still spreading the big lie that the election was stolen from him. he said it on the ingraham show LAST NIGHT.
we should not have to go between 2 threads when the former guy is still saying he was robbed of re-election.
I don't disagree. I just don't know why there is concern people are talking about Biden and not Trump on the Biden thread. Especially when there is an active thread for both. Why was there concern? Thats all.
It sounds like ya’ll in the echo chamber aren’t understanding the court situation with the Jan 6th capitol riots. I’ll help you out.
The basis is that (this is no surprise to any of us who don’t trust anything the MSM or political narrative of the left says without doing our own research) some of the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
if you’re unknowing how legal cases work, proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. In these cases, the rhetoric has been that these folks were trying to overthrow the gov’t. What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence is subject to greater scrutiny, it fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
keep watching, but these insurgents are beginning to be let go before trial and no longer held as flight risks, as the courts are deeming there’s insufficient evidence to state what the DOJ is claiming- even though they have TONS of evidence.
once again the fear mob media has spun a bunch of moronic Q people into more than what it was, and now can’t back up the charges.
another interesting note is how the DOJ is attempting in a determined and widespread tactical effort to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view. The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court. This is BS, and regime like. Discovery requires that evidence be turned over to the defense, period. We should all be furious our govt is attempting to manipulate these cases.
It sounds like ya’ll in the echo chamber aren’t understanding the court situation with the Jan 6th capitol riots. I’ll help you out.
The basis is that (this is no surprise to any of us who don’t trust anything the MSM or political narrative of the left says without doing our own research) some of the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
if you’re unknowing how legal cases work, proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. In these cases, the rhetoric has been that these folks were trying to overthrow the gov’t. What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence is subject to greater scrutiny, it fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
keep watching, but these insurgents are beginning to be let go before trial and no longer held as flight risks, as the courts are deeming there’s insufficient evidence to state what the DOJ is claiming- even though they have TONS of evidence.
once again the fear mob media has spun a bunch of moronic Q people into more than what it was, and now can’t back up the charges.
another interesting note is how the DOJ is attempting in a determined and widespread tactical effort to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view. The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court. This is BS, and regime like. Discovery requires that evidence be turned over to the defense, period. We should all be furious our govt is attempting to manipulate these cases.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years.1 Instead, his budget estimates showed that he would actually add at least $8.3 trillion, increasing the U.S. debt to $28.5 trillion by 2025.2 However, the national debt may reach that figure much sooner. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the national debt stood at $19.9 trillion. In October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion.
That's an increase of almost 36% in less than four years.3
The total amount that President Trump contributes to the national debt will probably be higher once the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is realized.
Key Takeaways
During his campaign in 2016, President Trump promised to eliminate the national debt in eight years.
Instead, it is projected that he will add at least $8.3 trillion.
As of October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion, an increase of almost 36% since President Trump took office in 2017.
The national debt and the amount President Trump contributes to it may be higher once the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is realized.
How Has the National Debt Increased Since Trump Took Office?
At first, it seemed Trump was lowering the debt. It fell $102 billion in the first six months after Trump took office. On January 20, the day Trump was inaugurated, the debt was $19.9 trillion. On July 30, it was $19.8 trillion. But it was not because of anything he did. Instead, it was because of the federal debt ceiling.
On Sept. 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling.4 Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On Feb. 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019.5 By February 2019, the total national debt was at $22 trillion. In July 2019, Trump suspended the debt ceiling until after the 2020 presidential election.6 On Oct. 1, 2020, the debt hit a new record of $27 trillion.3
Trump has overseen the fastest increase in the debt of any president—almost 36% from 2017 to 2020. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.
Will President Trump Reduce the National Debt?
Trump promised two strategies to reduce U.S. debt before taking office:
Increase growth by 4% to 6%
Eliminate wasteful federal spending
Increase Growth
While on the campaign trail, Trump promised to grow the economy by 4% to 6% annually to increase tax revenues.78
Once in office, Trump lowered his growth estimates to between 2% and 3%.9 These more realistic projections are within the 2% to 3% healthy growth rate.10 When growth is more than that, it creates inflation. Too much money chases too few good business projects. Irrational exuberance grips investors and they could create a boom-bust cycle that ends in a recession.
President Trump had also promised to achieve between 2% and 4% growth with tax cuts. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018.11 The top individual income tax rate dropped to 37%. It doubled the standard deduction and eliminated personal exemptions. The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.12
Trump's tax cuts won't stimulate the economy enough to make up for lost tax revenue. According to the Laffer curve, tax cuts only do that when the rates were above 50%. It worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70%.13
Eliminate Wasteful Federal Spending
Trump’s second strategy was to eliminate waste and redundancy in federal spending.14 He demonstrated this cost-consciousness during his campaign, such as when he used his Twitter account and rallies instead of expensive television ads.
Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. The problem isn't finding it—both Presidents Bush and Obama did that. The problem is in cutting it.15 Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. Eliminating these benefits may lose voters and contributors. Congressional representatives may agree to cut spending in someone else’s district, but resist doing so in their own.
Any president must cut into the biggest programs to make a real impact on the national debt.
More than two-thirds of government spending goes to mandatory obligations made by previous Acts of Congress. For FY 2021, Social Security benefits cost $1.2 trillion, Medicare cost $722 billion, and Medicaid cost $448 billion. The interest on the debt is $378 billion.
To lower the debt, military spending must also be cut because it's such a large portion of the budget. Instead, Trump increased military spending in FY 2021 to $933 billion. That includes three components:
$636 billion base budget for the Department of Defense
$69 billion in overseas contingency operations for DoD to fight the Islamic State group
$229 billion to fund the other agencies that protect our nation, including the Department of Veterans Affairs ($105 billion), Homeland Security ($50 billion), the State Department ($44 billion), the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($20 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity the Department of Justice ($10 billion)16
What's left of the $4.8 trillion budgeted for FY 2021 after mandatory and military spending? Only $595 billion to pay for everything else. That includes agencies that process Social Security and other benefits. It also includes the necessary functions performed by the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service. You'd have to eliminate it all to make a dent in the $966 billion deficit.17
You can't reduce the deficit or debt without major cuts to defense and mandated benefits programs. Cutting waste isn't enough.
Does Trump’s Business Debt Affect His Approach to U.S. Debt?
During the 2016 campaign, Trump said in an interview with CNBC that he would "borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”18 However, sovereign debt is different from personal debt. They can't be handled the same way.
A 2016 Fortune magazine analysis revealed Trump's business was $1.11 billion in debt.19 That includes $846 million owed on five properties. These include Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, and 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York. It also includes the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. and 555 California Street in San Francisco. But the income generated by these properties easily pays their annual interest payment. In the business world, Trump's debt is reasonable.
The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 136%. That's the $26.5 trillion U.S. debt as of June 2020, divided by the $19.5 trillion nominal GDP at the end of the second quarter this year.203
The World Bank compares countries based on their total debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77%.21
So far, the high U.S. debt-to-ratio hasn't discouraged investors. America is one of the safest economies in the world and its currency is the world's reserve currency. Even during a U.S. economic crisis, investors purchase U.S. Treasurys in a flight to safety. That's one reason why interest rates plunged to historical lows in March 2020 after the coronavirus outbreak.22 Those falling interest rates meant America's debt could increase, but interest payments remain stable.
The U.S. also has a massive fixed pension expense and health insurance costs. A business can renege on these benefits, ask for bankruptcy, and weather the resulting lawsuits. A president and Congress can't cut back those costs without losing their jobs at the next election. As such, Trump's experience in handling business debt does not transfer to managing the U.S. debt.
How the National Debt Affects You
The national debt doesn't affect you directly until it reaches the tipping point. Once the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77% for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 0.017 percentage points in economic growth, according to a World Bank analysis.21
The first sign of trouble is when interest rates start to rise significantly. Investors need a higher return to offset the greater perceived risk. They start to doubt that the debt can be paid off.
The second sign is that the U.S. dollar loses value. You will notice that as inflation rises, imported goods will cost more. Gas and grocery prices will rise. Travel to other countries will also become much more expensive.
As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.
It sounds like ya’ll in the echo chamber aren’t understanding the court situation with the Jan 6th capitol riots. I’ll help you out.
The basis is that (this is no surprise to any of us who don’t trust anything the MSM or political narrative of the left says without doing our own research) some of the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
if you’re unknowing how legal cases work, proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. In these cases, the rhetoric has been that these folks were trying to overthrow the gov’t. What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence is subject to greater scrutiny, it fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
keep watching, but these insurgents are beginning to be let go before trial and no longer held as flight risks, as the courts are deeming there’s insufficient evidence to state what the DOJ is claiming- even though they have TONS of evidence.
once again the fear mob media has spun a bunch of moronic Q people into more than what it was, and now can’t back up the charges.
another interesting note is how the DOJ is attempting in a determined and widespread tactical effort to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view. The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court. This is BS, and regime like. Discovery requires that evidence be turned over to the defense, period. We should all be furious our govt is attempting to manipulate these cases.
It sounds like ya’ll in the echo chamber aren’t understanding the court situation with the Jan 6th capitol riots. I’ll help you out.
The basis is that (this is no surprise to any of us who don’t trust anything the MSM or political narrative of the left says without doing our own research) some of the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
if you’re unknowing how legal cases work, proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. In these cases, the rhetoric has been that these folks were trying to overthrow the gov’t. What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence is subject to greater scrutiny, it fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
keep watching, but these insurgents are beginning to be let go before trial and no longer held as flight risks, as the courts are deeming there’s insufficient evidence to state what the DOJ is claiming- even though they have TONS of evidence.
once again the fear mob media has spun a bunch of moronic Q people into more than what it was, and now can’t back up the charges.
another interesting note is how the DOJ is attempting in a determined and widespread tactical effort to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view. The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court. This is BS, and regime like. Discovery requires that evidence be turned over to the defense, period. We should all be furious our govt is attempting to manipulate these cases.
Let's unpack this a bit, and perhaps for the first time in your illustrious posting history, you can retort to a retort.
1. Who has been charged with attempting to "overthrow the gov't"? What is that specific charge? 2. To my knowledge, no one has even been charged with seditious conspiracy yet. I'm sure you understand that statute on that, since you spent time today learning about proffers while your dough expanded in your proofer. Therefore, I'm not sure how these cases are "falling apart" when the charges haven't been filed yet. 3. For 99% of us, it matters not whether someone ends up being charged with seditious conspiracy or any other charges in that range. At the end of the day, what happened clearly happened. Trump called his idiots to DC, they came, they stormed the Capitol. If a handful of them (Oath keepers and the like) didn't necessarily have some more elaborate plan in place, that doesn't change the fact that a violent riot took place specifically to stop the certification of the vote. If that's the end story and a hundred or so cop to pleas or go to trial, that's bad enough. 4. Why do you believe the gov't has some moral obligation to release evidence to the public prior to trial? The defendants will have their day in court and get to choose a jury or have the judge render a verdict. The court of public opinion matters not in criminal cases, regardless of how much you want to make this an important point.
I think it basically boils down to whining about not being able to pollute the jury pool and sweating out jail or home confinement while you contemplate plea offers versus going to trial and the weight and subsequent costs and results of your options. This ain’t CYA Barr’s DOJ and I have absolutely no sympathy for these ass hats, nor I’m sure do the members of the black community in that little Tejas town that the current #3 at DOJ freed on appeal from lengthy prison sentences for not only drug crimes they never committed but for which the prosecution had no physical evidence or corroborated testimony or evidence. I’m sure Roles knows about it being all up on the law and living in Tejas. Welcome to justice, ‘Murica style.
President
Biden announced his first slate of judicial nominees on Tuesday,
elevating U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the influential
appeals court in Washington to succeed Merrick Garland as part of the largest and earliest batch of court picks by a new administration in decades.
Jackson,
often considered a contender to be the first Black woman on the Supreme
Court, is among Biden’s 11 nominations that include three Black women
for appeals court vacancies and the first Muslim American to serve on a
District Court. The group is designed to send a message about the
administration’s desire for more diversity on the federal bench and how
rapidly the president wants to put his mark on it.
Biden
previously pledged to name the first Black woman to the high court, and
his picks signal an early departure from the Trump administration,
which successfully reshaped the federal courts with nominees who were
overwhelmingly White and male.
The
nominees come from diverse personal and professional backgrounds,
including former public defenders, former prosecutors, sitting judges
and attorneys at large law firms, according to a list provided by the
White House.
“This
trailblazing slate of nominees draws from the very best and brightest
minds of the American legal profession,” Biden said in a statement
provided to The Washington Post. “Each is deeply qualified and prepared
to deliver justice faithfully under our Constitution and impartially to
the American people — and together they represent the broad diversity of
background, experience, and perspective that makes our nation strong.”
In addition to Jackson’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Biden’s initial list includes Zahid N. Quraishi a
magistrate judge in New Jersey and former military prosecutor, who
would be the nation’s first Muslim American on a District Court bench; Candace Jackson-Akiwumi,a former longtime federal public defender and current litigator in Washington for the Chicago-based 7th Circuit; and Tiffany Cunningham, an intellectual-property lawyer in Chicago, for a spot on the Federal Circuit in Washington, where she once was a law clerk.
Both
Jackson-Akiwumi and Cunningham would be the only Black judges on their
respective courts, and Cunningham the first on the Federal Circuit.
Top
White House officials have said that judicial nominations are a
priority. They are attempting to fill vacancies more quickly — in part
responding to criticism that President Barack Obama acted slowly — and
use them as a rallying cry for the party in a way that Republicans have
done for decades.
By
this point in his first term, Obama had made only one judicial
nomination. Trump, known for his record-setting pace of nominations, had
picked two.
President George H.W. Bush had made two
appellate court picks and three district court picks by this point in
his term, while Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan hadn’t
announced any. President George W. Bush also hadn’t named anyone,
although on May 9, 2001, he announced 11 for the appeals courts.
The Post reported last month that
the Biden administration is also following a Trump practice to speed up
the process, forgoing the American Bar Association review of candidates
in advance of formal nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee could
hold hearings on the nominations by late April.
Biden’s
first slate includes two nominees for the District Court in Maryland,
Magistrate Judge Deborah Boardman and Judge Lydia Griggsby, who serves
on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Griggsby, a former Senate staffer,
would be the first woman of color to serve on Maryland’s federal bench.
The
president plans to renominate D.C. Superior Court Judge Florence Y. Pan
for the opening created by Jackson’s elevation. Pan, who was previously
picked in 2016, would become the first Asian American woman to serve on
the court. Rupa Ranga Puttagunta, an administrative law judge for the
D.C. Rental Housing Commission, is Biden’s pick for D.C. Superior Court.
For
other District Court openings, Biden selected Julien Neals, a county
counsel and acting Bergen County administrator, to serve in New Jersey;
Regina Rodriguez, a former federal prosecutor, to serve in Colorado; and
in New Mexico, Margaret Strickland, a former president of the New
Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Supreme Court steppingstone?
But
the most widely anticipated nomination was the opening on the D.C.
Circuit, which has been a steppingstone to the Supreme Court. Jackson is
among those considered a possible successor to Justice Stephen G.
Breyer, the high court’s oldest member. Jackson once clerked for Breyer.
Before
becoming a judge, Jackson spent more time writing briefs than
representing clients in the courtroom, making her well suited for the
cerebral work of the D.C. Circuit, which involves less day-to-day case
management than District Court.
“She
can turn complex issues into something understandable and readable and
tell a story. That’s not the easiest thing to do,” said A.J. Kramer, the
longtime federal public defender in Washington, who was her boss.
The
nomination of a former public defender sends an important message,
Kramer said, about the administration’s commitment to pick judges from a
variety of professional backgrounds. Jackson, 50, has “a real
commitment to equal justice for everybody and believes the criminal
justice system ought to have integrity at every level,” he said.
In eight years on the bench, Jackson issued lengthy rulings against the Trump administration, with mixed results on appeal.
“However
busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their
proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the
President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an
action that the law requires,” Jackson wrote in a 118-page opinion.
“Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that
fundamental truth.”
The
case, twice appealed to a full panel of the D.C. Circuit, is still
pending as the Biden administration and House Democrats try to negotiate
a possible settlement.
The same year, she issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked the Trump administration
from dramatically expanding its power to deport migrants who illegally
entered the United States by using a fast-track deportation process. On
appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that expedited removal
decisions are within the homeland security secretary’s discretion. The
appeals court agreed with Jackson on other grounds and sent the case
back for further review.
In
2018, Jackson struck down key provisions of Trump administration orders
aimed at making it easier to fire employees and weaken their
representation. While the president has the power to issue executive
orders related to federal labor relations, “no such orders can operate
to eviscerate the right to bargain collectively as envisioned” in the
federal labor-management relations statute, she wrote. The collective
bargaining process, she added, “is not a cutthroat death match.”
A
unanimous D.C. Circuit panel the next year vacated the ruling and said
the District Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.
At
sentencing, where tensions are high, Jackson has shown empathy and
pragmatism from the bench as she did in the case of Edgar Maddison
Welch, the North Carolina man who charged into Comet Ping Pong with a
military-style rifle and revolver seeking to investigate a viral
Internet rumor. The judge said she was handing down a four-year prison
term to guard against vigilante justice.
“I
hope you understand and see how much people have suffered because of
what you did,” Jackson said, adding, “I am truly sorry you find yourself
in the position you are in, because you do seem like a nice person who
on your own mind was trying to do the right thing. But that does not
excuse reckless conduct and the real damage that it caused.”
'Bends toward justice'
Born
in Washington, Jackson was raised in Florida by parents who began their
careers as public school teachers. Her interest in law was sparked at
the dining room table, where as a preschooler she tackled coloring books
beside her father, who was studying law and went on to become the local
school board’s attorney.
The
debate team took Jackson for the first time to Harvard University,
where she went on to study government, earn a law degree, join an improv
comedy group and participate in drama, where she was once paired with
classmate Matt Damon. Harvard was also where she met her husband,
Patrick, a surgeon at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
At
the courthouse, Jackson is known for her boisterous laugh and
down-to-earth demeanor. She commiserates about the challenges of being a
working parent to two daughters, and she is fond of reality TV shows
such as “American Idol.”
Jackson’s
career included a stint on the commission that shapes federal
sentencing policies, where she worked alongside U.S. District Judge
Patti B. Saris, for whom Jackson clerked after law school.
“She
has a big-picture take on sentencing policy, which seeks to balance the
policies of eliminating unwarranted disparity with the need to think in
new ways about the proportionality of sentencing,” Saris said at
Jackson’s formal swearing-in ceremony.
Saris
recalled the hearing when the commission decided to make the reduction
in penalties for drug-related offenses apply retroactively.
“Ketanji’s
voice rang out with conviction in explaining that the decision really
epitomized Martin Luther King’s famous metaphor: ‘The arc of the moral
universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’”
Her
work on the seven-person, bipartisan body will also serve her well on
the appeals court that typically reviews cases with three-judge panels,
said Rachel E. Barkow, a Harvard Law School classmate who served with
Jackson on the commission. Most of the sentencing policy decisions were
unanimous, and Jackson “helped foster that environment.”
“She
was able to shine in that setting,” said Barkow, vice dean of New York
University Law School. “She used the information she’d studied to find
common ground for people.”
Jackson’s
experience with the criminal justice system is personal, too. When she
was in high school, her uncle was sentenced to life in prison under a
three-strikes law after a conviction for a low-level drug crime, The Post’s editorial page first reported. He was granted clemency by Obama after serving 30 years.
At
Jackson’s formal investiture in May 2013, Breyer delivered the oath and
praised Jackson not just for her intellect and work ethic.
“That’s
part of it,” he said, adding that “She sees things from different
points of view, and she sees somebody else’s point of view and
understands it. We all feel that’s our judicial family. That’s what
we’re here for.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
He also didn't call on NPR and NYT, if I'm not mistaken.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I start my first day as a little league coach tomorrow. First order of business: Everybody's name is Buddy.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Is this not the place to discuss the first press conference of Biden?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But it is okay. His people who invaded the Capitol presented zero risk. They were hugging and kissing the police officer's that day.
WHAT A CONTRAST. It's really unbelievable.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
we should not have to go between 2 threads when the former guy is still saying he was robbed of re-election.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-white-house-leaked-170659888.html
Why Trump’s White House Leaked and Biden’s Hasn’t
The basis is that (this is no surprise to any of us who don’t trust anything the MSM or political narrative of the left says without doing our own research) some of the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
if you’re unknowing how legal cases work, proffers are a process by which the prosecutors make representations to the court about what evidence it possesses and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether the release of a defendant pending trial creates a threat to the safety of an individual or the community as a whole. In these cases, the rhetoric has been that these folks were trying to overthrow the gov’t. What is beginning to happen now, as some of the January 6 protest cases are moving further into the judicial process, is that when the evidence is subject to greater scrutiny, it fails to live up to the hype of the narrative that the government sought to establish starting back on January 7 and thereafter.
keep watching, but these insurgents are beginning to be let go before trial and no longer held as flight risks, as the courts are deeming there’s insufficient evidence to state what the DOJ is claiming- even though they have TONS of evidence.
once again the fear mob media has spun a bunch of moronic Q people into more than what it was, and now can’t back up the charges.
another interesting note is how the DOJ is attempting in a determined and widespread tactical effort to keep the actual evidence it has in all these cases out of public view. The government is currently attempting to strong-arm defense attorneys into agreeing to “protective orders” in connection with “discovery” in these cases. The government is attempting to coerce an agreement out of defendants that they will not include any discovery materials or reference the specifics of discovery materials in any public filings in the cases — everything would be filed under seal, and only released to the public upon an order by the court. This is BS, and regime like. Discovery requires that evidence be turned over to the defense, period. We should all be furious our govt is attempting to manipulate these cases.
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-us-news-1c81065c39790d6bbafb4ffdc3d2dc1e
--https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401
-
President Trump's Impact on the National Debt
The national debt has increased by almost 36% since Trump took office
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump promised he would eliminate the nation’s debt in eight years.1 Instead, his budget estimates showed that he would actually add at least $8.3 trillion, increasing the U.S. debt to $28.5 trillion by 2025.2 However, the national debt may reach that figure much sooner. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the national debt stood at $19.9 trillion. In October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion.
The total amount that President Trump contributes to the national debt will probably be higher once the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is realized.
Key Takeaways
How Has the National Debt Increased Since Trump Took Office?
At first, it seemed Trump was lowering the debt. It fell $102 billion in the first six months after Trump took office. On January 20, the day Trump was inaugurated, the debt was $19.9 trillion. On July 30, it was $19.8 trillion. But it was not because of anything he did. Instead, it was because of the federal debt ceiling.
On Sept. 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling.4 Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On Feb. 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019.5 By February 2019, the total national debt was at $22 trillion. In July 2019, Trump suspended the debt ceiling until after the 2020 presidential election.6 On Oct. 1, 2020, the debt hit a new record of $27 trillion.3
Trump has overseen the fastest increase in the debt of any president—almost 36% from 2017 to 2020. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.
Will President Trump Reduce the National Debt?
Trump promised two strategies to reduce U.S. debt before taking office:
Increase Growth
While on the campaign trail, Trump promised to grow the economy by 4% to 6% annually to increase tax revenues.78
Once in office, Trump lowered his growth estimates to between 2% and 3%.9 These more realistic projections are within the 2% to 3% healthy growth rate.10 When growth is more than that, it creates inflation. Too much money chases too few good business projects. Irrational exuberance grips investors and they could create a boom-bust cycle that ends in a recession.
President Trump had also promised to achieve between 2% and 4% growth with tax cuts. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018.11 The top individual income tax rate dropped to 37%. It doubled the standard deduction and eliminated personal exemptions. The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.12
Trump's tax cuts won't stimulate the economy enough to make up for lost tax revenue. According to the Laffer curve, tax cuts only do that when the rates were above 50%. It worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70%.13
Eliminate Wasteful Federal Spending
Trump’s second strategy was to eliminate waste and redundancy in federal spending.14 He demonstrated this cost-consciousness during his campaign, such as when he used his Twitter account and rallies instead of expensive television ads.
Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. The problem isn't finding it—both Presidents Bush and Obama did that. The problem is in cutting it.15 Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. Eliminating these benefits may lose voters and contributors. Congressional representatives may agree to cut spending in someone else’s district, but resist doing so in their own.
Any president must cut into the biggest programs to make a real impact on the national debt.
More than two-thirds of government spending goes to mandatory obligations made by previous Acts of Congress. For FY 2021, Social Security benefits cost $1.2 trillion, Medicare cost $722 billion, and Medicaid cost $448 billion. The interest on the debt is $378 billion.
To lower the debt, military spending must also be cut because it's such a large portion of the budget. Instead, Trump increased military spending in FY 2021 to $933 billion. That includes three components:
What's left of the $4.8 trillion budgeted for FY 2021 after mandatory and military spending? Only $595 billion to pay for everything else. That includes agencies that process Social Security and other benefits. It also includes the necessary functions performed by the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service. You'd have to eliminate it all to make a dent in the $966 billion deficit.17
You can't reduce the deficit or debt without major cuts to defense and mandated benefits programs. Cutting waste isn't enough.
Does Trump’s Business Debt Affect His Approach to U.S. Debt?
During the 2016 campaign, Trump said in an interview with CNBC that he would "borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”18 However, sovereign debt is different from personal debt. They can't be handled the same way.
A 2016 Fortune magazine analysis revealed Trump's business was $1.11 billion in debt.19 That includes $846 million owed on five properties. These include Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, and 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York. It also includes the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. and 555 California Street in San Francisco. But the income generated by these properties easily pays their annual interest payment. In the business world, Trump's debt is reasonable.
The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 136%. That's the $26.5 trillion U.S. debt as of June 2020, divided by the $19.5 trillion nominal GDP at the end of the second quarter this year.203
The World Bank compares countries based on their total debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77%.21
So far, the high U.S. debt-to-ratio hasn't discouraged investors. America is one of the safest economies in the world and its currency is the world's reserve currency. Even during a U.S. economic crisis, investors purchase U.S. Treasurys in a flight to safety. That's one reason why interest rates plunged to historical lows in March 2020 after the coronavirus outbreak.22 Those falling interest rates meant America's debt could increase, but interest payments remain stable.
The U.S. also has a massive fixed pension expense and health insurance costs. A business can renege on these benefits, ask for bankruptcy, and weather the resulting lawsuits. A president and Congress can't cut back those costs without losing their jobs at the next election. As such, Trump's experience in handling business debt does not transfer to managing the U.S. debt.
How the National Debt Affects You
The national debt doesn't affect you directly until it reaches the tipping point. Once the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77% for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 0.017 percentage points in economic growth, according to a World Bank analysis.21
The first sign of trouble is when interest rates start to rise significantly. Investors need a higher return to offset the greater perceived risk. They start to doubt that the debt can be paid off.
The second sign is that the U.S. dollar loses value. You will notice that as inflation rises, imported goods will cost more. Gas and grocery prices will rise. Travel to other countries will also become much more expensive.
As interest rates and inflation rise, the cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket. That leaves less money for other services. At that point, the government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes. That will further slow economic growth. At that point, continued deficit spending will no longer work.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1. Who has been charged with attempting to "overthrow the gov't"? What is that specific charge?
2. To my knowledge, no one has even been charged with seditious conspiracy yet. I'm sure you understand that statute on that, since you spent time today learning about proffers while your dough expanded in your proofer. Therefore, I'm not sure how these cases are "falling apart" when the charges haven't been filed yet.
3. For 99% of us, it matters not whether someone ends up being charged with seditious conspiracy or any other charges in that range. At the end of the day, what happened clearly happened. Trump called his idiots to DC, they came, they stormed the Capitol. If a handful of them (Oath keepers and the like) didn't necessarily have some more elaborate plan in place, that doesn't change the fact that a violent riot took place specifically to stop the certification of the vote. If that's the end story and a hundred or so cop to pleas or go to trial, that's bad enough.
4. Why do you believe the gov't has some moral obligation to release evidence to the public prior to trial? The defendants will have their day in court and get to choose a jury or have the judge render a verdict. The court of public opinion matters not in criminal cases, regardless of how much you want to make this an important point.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
President Biden announced his first slate of judicial nominees on Tuesday, elevating U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the influential appeals court in Washington to succeed Merrick Garland as part of the largest and earliest batch of court picks by a new administration in decades.
Jackson, often considered a contender to be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, is among Biden’s 11 nominations that include three Black women for appeals court vacancies and the first Muslim American to serve on a District Court. The group is designed to send a message about the administration’s desire for more diversity on the federal bench and how rapidly the president wants to put his mark on it.
Biden previously pledged to name the first Black woman to the high court, and his picks signal an early departure from the Trump administration, which successfully reshaped the federal courts with nominees who were overwhelmingly White and male.
The nominees come from diverse personal and professional backgrounds, including former public defenders, former prosecutors, sitting judges and attorneys at large law firms, according to a list provided by the White House.
“This trailblazing slate of nominees draws from the very best and brightest minds of the American legal profession,” Biden said in a statement provided to The Washington Post. “Each is deeply qualified and prepared to deliver justice faithfully under our Constitution and impartially to the American people — and together they represent the broad diversity of background, experience, and perspective that makes our nation strong.”
In addition to Jackson’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Biden’s initial list includes Zahid N. Quraishi a magistrate judge in New Jersey and former military prosecutor, who would be the nation’s first Muslim American on a District Court bench; Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, a former longtime federal public defender and current litigator in Washington for the Chicago-based 7th Circuit; and Tiffany Cunningham, an intellectual-property lawyer in Chicago, for a spot on the Federal Circuit in Washington, where she once was a law clerk.
Both Jackson-Akiwumi and Cunningham would be the only Black judges on their respective courts, and Cunningham the first on the Federal Circuit.
Top White House officials have said that judicial nominations are a priority. They are attempting to fill vacancies more quickly — in part responding to criticism that President Barack Obama acted slowly — and use them as a rallying cry for the party in a way that Republicans have done for decades.
By this point in his first term, Obama had made only one judicial nomination. Trump, known for his record-setting pace of nominations, had picked two.
President George H.W. Bush had made two appellate court picks and three district court picks by this point in his term, while Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan hadn’t announced any. President George W. Bush also hadn’t named anyone, although on May 9, 2001, he announced 11 for the appeals courts.
The Post reported last month that the Biden administration is also following a Trump practice to speed up the process, forgoing the American Bar Association review of candidates in advance of formal nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee could hold hearings on the nominations by late April.
Biden’s first slate includes two nominees for the District Court in Maryland, Magistrate Judge Deborah Boardman and Judge Lydia Griggsby, who serves on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Griggsby, a former Senate staffer, would be the first woman of color to serve on Maryland’s federal bench.
The president plans to renominate D.C. Superior Court Judge Florence Y. Pan for the opening created by Jackson’s elevation. Pan, who was previously picked in 2016, would become the first Asian American woman to serve on the court. Rupa Ranga Puttagunta, an administrative law judge for the D.C. Rental Housing Commission, is Biden’s pick for D.C. Superior Court.
For other District Court openings, Biden selected Julien Neals, a county counsel and acting Bergen County administrator, to serve in New Jersey; Regina Rodriguez, a former federal prosecutor, to serve in Colorado; and in New Mexico, Margaret Strickland, a former president of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Supreme Court steppingstone?
But the most widely anticipated nomination was the opening on the D.C. Circuit, which has been a steppingstone to the Supreme Court. Jackson is among those considered a possible successor to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the high court’s oldest member. Jackson once clerked for Breyer.
Jackson’s nomination comes after Garland was confirmed this month to serve as attorney general. A former public defender and member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Jackson is known as a gifted writer and unflappable jurist who works long hours and has handled many types of cases. She rejected the Trump administration’s effort to block a congressional subpoena for testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn and sentenced the gunman who commandeered a pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington based on an online conspiracy theory known as “Pizzagate.”
Before becoming a judge, Jackson spent more time writing briefs than representing clients in the courtroom, making her well suited for the cerebral work of the D.C. Circuit, which involves less day-to-day case management than District Court.
“She can turn complex issues into something understandable and readable and tell a story. That’s not the easiest thing to do,” said A.J. Kramer, the longtime federal public defender in Washington, who was her boss.
Biden moves quickly to make his mark on federal courts after Trump’s record judicial nominations
The nomination of a former public defender sends an important message, Kramer said, about the administration’s commitment to pick judges from a variety of professional backgrounds. Jackson, 50, has “a real commitment to equal justice for everybody and believes the criminal justice system ought to have integrity at every level,” he said.
In eight years on the bench, Jackson issued lengthy rulings against the Trump administration, with mixed results on appeal.
“Presidents are not kings,” Jackson declared in 2019, ordering Trump’s former White House counsel to comply with a House subpoena to testify about former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election interference.
“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires,” Jackson wrote in a 118-page opinion. “Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”
The case, twice appealed to a full panel of the D.C. Circuit, is still pending as the Biden administration and House Democrats try to negotiate a possible settlement.
The same year, she issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked the Trump administration from dramatically expanding its power to deport migrants who illegally entered the United States by using a fast-track deportation process. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that expedited removal decisions are within the homeland security secretary’s discretion. The appeals court agreed with Jackson on other grounds and sent the case back for further review.
In 2018, Jackson struck down key provisions of Trump administration orders aimed at making it easier to fire employees and weaken their representation. While the president has the power to issue executive orders related to federal labor relations, “no such orders can operate to eviscerate the right to bargain collectively as envisioned” in the federal labor-management relations statute, she wrote. The collective bargaining process, she added, “is not a cutthroat death match.”
A unanimous D.C. Circuit panel the next year vacated the ruling and said the District Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.
In victory for unions, judge overturns key parts of Trump executive orders
At sentencing, where tensions are high, Jackson has shown empathy and pragmatism from the bench as she did in the case of Edgar Maddison Welch, the North Carolina man who charged into Comet Ping Pong with a military-style rifle and revolver seeking to investigate a viral Internet rumor. The judge said she was handing down a four-year prison term to guard against vigilante justice.
“I hope you understand and see how much people have suffered because of what you did,” Jackson said, adding, “I am truly sorry you find yourself in the position you are in, because you do seem like a nice person who on your own mind was trying to do the right thing. But that does not excuse reckless conduct and the real damage that it caused.”
'Bends toward justice'
Born in Washington, Jackson was raised in Florida by parents who began their careers as public school teachers. Her interest in law was sparked at the dining room table, where as a preschooler she tackled coloring books beside her father, who was studying law and went on to become the local school board’s attorney.
The debate team took Jackson for the first time to Harvard University, where she went on to study government, earn a law degree, join an improv comedy group and participate in drama, where she was once paired with classmate Matt Damon. Harvard was also where she met her husband, Patrick, a surgeon at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
At the courthouse, Jackson is known for her boisterous laugh and down-to-earth demeanor. She commiserates about the challenges of being a working parent to two daughters, and she is fond of reality TV shows such as “American Idol.”
Jackson’s career included a stint on the commission that shapes federal sentencing policies, where she worked alongside U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, for whom Jackson clerked after law school.
“She has a big-picture take on sentencing policy, which seeks to balance the policies of eliminating unwarranted disparity with the need to think in new ways about the proportionality of sentencing,” Saris said at Jackson’s formal swearing-in ceremony.
Saris recalled the hearing when the commission decided to make the reduction in penalties for drug-related offenses apply retroactively.
“Ketanji’s voice rang out with conviction in explaining that the decision really epitomized Martin Luther King’s famous metaphor: ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’”
Her work on the seven-person, bipartisan body will also serve her well on the appeals court that typically reviews cases with three-judge panels, said Rachel E. Barkow, a Harvard Law School classmate who served with Jackson on the commission. Most of the sentencing policy decisions were unanimous, and Jackson “helped foster that environment.”
“She was able to shine in that setting,” said Barkow, vice dean of New York University Law School. “She used the information she’d studied to find common ground for people.”
Jackson’s experience with the criminal justice system is personal, too. When she was in high school, her uncle was sentenced to life in prison under a three-strikes law after a conviction for a low-level drug crime, The Post’s editorial page first reported. He was granted clemency by Obama after serving 30 years.
At Jackson’s formal investiture in May 2013, Breyer delivered the oath and praised Jackson not just for her intellect and work ethic.
“That’s part of it,” he said, adding that “She sees things from different points of view, and she sees somebody else’s point of view and understands it. We all feel that’s our judicial family. That’s what we’re here for.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14