re: Judge Beryl Howell goes all in blocks another Trump EO - Perkins Coie

quote:

---

Nobody asked for the explanation.

---

This is a discussion board and many people need it.

quote:

---

And again, you told someone to not be "retarded" on the first page of this thread to begin your explanation.

---

Yes, and as I told you earlier, it was a nod to him using the word already. He's a lawyer and knows better than his silly argument to which I used the word

quote:

---

Nothing says "I'm an objective person with objective things to say" like starting off by an explanation with "Don't be retarded"

---

Baked into my response was that very point. You just didn't comprehend the bigger picture, I reckon. I explained it to you again above.

quote:

---

Again, bringing up the imaginary collective that you battle against. A

---

No its a real thing. And they've referenced it (see all the "15 page thread" comments in this very thread) themselves

quote:

---

Never wrong about anything.

---

This is not the thread to say that

I've already admitted to 2 errors in response to just you ITT.

quote:

---

More narcissism

---

While the story is true, it was clearly more of a joke in response to your silly question.

quote:

---

Maybe you just aren't good at explaining legal issues,

---

See this is where you engage in ad homs and if I respond, I'm a "narcissist"

quote:

---

since you are apparently the only one on the entire board that understands them.

---

This isn't true. This board is just infected with NPCs these days, who listen to grifters on social media to form their echoed talking points.

And the intelligent people who see the echo chamber for what it is don't always agree with me. Bunk and I, for example, butt heads over the origination of the conflict in Ukraine.

quote:

---

I just gave a synopsis

---

A very bad one. One could easily call it a straw man

quote:

---

Unfortunately, there's been no comment.

---

See above.

quote:

---

a straw man

---

What did I make up?

What did I even attack?

I just tried to boil it down in simple terms without providing any judgement call.

Have you not said that the president gave a reason for withdrawing SC when he didn't need to? Is it not your contention (and the judge's) that the reason he gave violates the 1st Amendment? Aren't you also arguing that none of what the president claims, nor what the judge addresses, goes beyond the actions taken by the firm during the 2016 campaign? I guess the only conclusion I came to in my post was that the president could have avoided the judgement by simply not giving a reason.

If none of my synopsis is accurate, then you indeed have done a very poor job of explaining your position vis-a-vis the judgement. But I thought, up until now, you've been quite clear and consistent. Now you've just thrown me for a loop.

quote:

---

You just didn't comprehend the bigger picture

---

That's hilariously ironic

quote:

---

This is not the thread to say that

I've already admitted to 2 errors in response to just you ITT.

---

but you are still telling me I don't understand

quote:

---

See this is where you engage in ad homs and if I respond, I'm a "narcissist"

---

No, I think you have done a poor job of presenting this legal issue. And when a poster tried to give you an honest synopsis of what they thought you said, you refused to acknowledge it.

Your failure to recognize this is a demonstration of your narcissistic behavior. That's not ad hom, that is just my perspective on your contribution to this thread, which is a trend.

quote:

---

It is similar to the concept that in an at-will state, you can be fired for no reason at all. But if a reason is given, it should be a good one, and must be a legal one.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

I don't think that narrative really plays in this situation

---

Perhaps that's the straw man he accused me of creating, and wasn't really his point at all. Although, I hardly equate coming to the wrong conclusion to that of creating a straw man.

Maybe he's just being defensive and expecting me to attack that position after creating it. I don't know, I thought it was an interesting discussion right up to the point where he basically told me I didn't understand it at all.

This judge is a master class in weaponizing the judiciary.

quote:

---

Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama-appointed federal judge, has carved out a legacy as a judicial battering ram against Donald Trump and his allies. Her gavel was hit with a partisan venom stick.

From her 2019 ruling that handed House Democrats a treasure trove of Mueller probe secrets to her 2023 speech decrying “big lies” and January 6 “revisionist myths,” Howell’s track record reads like a litany of anti-Trump crusades.

She’s pierced attorney-client privilege to force Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran to testify, held Twitter in contempt for not coughing up Trump’s direct messages.

She slapped Rudy Giuliani with a $148 million defamation tab for daring to question the 2020 election.

Her courtroom quips—like calling Trump a “sore loser” or likening his administration’s legal arguments to a toddler’s tantrum—exposes her a political operative in robes.

Nowhere is Howell’s alleged bias more glaring than in her ruling tonight in favor of Perkins Coie, the law firm infamous for its ties to Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier.

Trump’s Executive Order to sanction the firm—barring its lawyers from federal buildings and choking its government contracts—Howell didn’t just block it; she obliterated it with a 102-page manifesto, branding it an unconstitutional “bill of attainder” fueled by Trump’s “personal vendetta.”

Her rhetoric is apocalyptic, claiming the order sent “chills down her spine” and threatened the legal profession with “blizzard proportions” of harm.

Her court room is a masterclass in weaponizing the judiciary to prop up the corrupt left.

She has one of the most egregious records of anyone on the DC bench and that’s really saying something there.

From enabling Jack Smith’s witch hunts to excoriating DOGE’s efficiency reforms, Howell’s rulings consistently rule against Trump’s agenda regardless of the law.

She is the poster child for the full frontal assault on the judiciary branch by a bunch of radical ideologues in black garb.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

If we don’t start arresting these fricking traitors, none of this means anything.

You’re so full of shite. frick you, you liberal bitch.

JFC… like clockwork, this f@ggot TDSFP sprints in to simp for the libs.

Pathetic.