BREAKING: Trump explains HOW he intends to count citizenship WITHOUT using the Census!

Trump has announced that intends to count citizenship without using the Census, by ordering all federal agencies and departments to turn over all of their records on citizenship effective immediately.

Watch:



This makes so much sense, considering how much data the federal government has on citizens and non-citizens in the US.

Trump says they believe this will be even more accurate than using the census, noting that many of these federal departments have ‘great knowledge’.

Barr affirmed Trump’s new plan to count citizenship and derided the fake news media for suggesting Trump was going to try and bypass the Supreme Court. Barr said that was never the plan and called that reporting rampant speculation.

So what do you think of Trump’s new plan?

UPDATE: Daniel Horowitz makes an interesting point about the announcement:

I think he’s exactly right. It does set a bad precedent. But on the flip side I like the new plan Trump has invoked today and look forward to seeing the results.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

229 thoughts on “BREAKING: Trump explains HOW he intends to count citizenship WITHOUT using the Census!

  1. I’m starting to wonder, has he actually done anything at all when it comes to the border? 4 miles of border wall don’t count.

  2. The Social Security Administration is a great place to get citizenship information. When applying for a number, people have to show proof of citizenship or legal immigration status. So it’s not like the Census where no proof is required.

    The only caveat when using SSA data is that USCIS doesn’t inform them when a legal immigrant naturalizes. It’s on the immigrant to go to SSA with his/her naturalization certificate to change the record. USCIS doesn’t even tell the immigrant that they have to go to SSA so many new Americans are in SSA records as still being green card holders.

    SSA records should be cross checked with USCIS to see which green card holders have since naturalized and can be counted as citizens.

    1. That’s something that needs to be fixed. A SS number should be given at the time naturalization is made official.

  3. The problem with this approach is the places with lots of illegals will still get more representation in congress.
    The only way to stop this would be to deport the illegals before the census.

      1. That means it is more likely to have open borders the law of the land. Along with all the other commie ideas Democrats want. California has lots of illegals if they get more representation kiss our country goodby.

        Good luck with that.

    1. I’m right there with you! Hey, don’t you have a birthday coming up soon or did I just miss it?

        1. I never got around to filing for Medicare! Hubby’s employment insurance still covers me and is good insurance. I know I need to get it done and that I don’t have to use it. I will just claim that I forgot my age. They say the mind is the first thing to go, you know. (GRIN)

  4. Yay disqus!!! This is good. It should also show how many illegals are on the dole. And be made public.

  5. O/T: There is a four to five foot alligator loose in the Humboldt Park Lagoon in Chicago, which is resisting efforts to be captured. People are of course naming it. Chance The Snapper and Croc Obama are two of the favorites.

  6. Good luck with that. He’s going to have to borrow all of Pelosi’s flying monkeys to get that done.

  7. Do we have Government Agencies/Departments that have a clue about anything? Seriously, look at the errors made within every part of Government.

  8. Yay disqus!!! This is good. It should also show how many illegals are on the dole. And be made public.

  9. Trump and R’s continue to surrender to the left while lying to republicans. Once again, no intention of doing anything to stop illegal immigration, deal with ACA or anything else voters on the right want. Trump apologists and voters need to see once and for all that Trump is not tough. He’s a talker, a salesman. Trump only cares about Trump. The Koch Bros. And Carl Rove’s donors run the Republican Party. Trump is merely a stooge.

  10. CA, IL, FL, NC, NY, NM, and other states will likely see a decline in Congressional seats… illegal aliens SHOULD NOT be counted because they should not vote. CA alone should only have 45-48 Electoral votes.

  11. And how is this going to prevent the Dems from using the census to pad the number of electoral votes and representatives in blue states?

    1. It won’t. But once the numbers of citizens and foreigners are published and widely known, there should be public pressure to change representation. Everyone except for hardcore Dems will see it as unfair to give representation to foreigners.

      1. You shouldn’t have to do that, D.

        I know one thing you can try. Somewhere in your browser settings is an option to allow third-party tracking. Make sure that it’s checked to allow. If you can’t find it, just google Third-Party Tracking and the name of your browser.

    1. Thank goodness! I absolutely hated going through the “I am not a robot” crap to sign back in.

      1. You shouldn’t have had to do that everytime. Same as with Disqus, you can stay logged in. However, I’m glad we’re back to Disqus.

  12. This is a fantastic compromise. It would have been much too close to a constitutional crisis if he had pressed on. This way, he can still find the info on illegal aliens, while not breaking the balance of power between the branches. Good for him.

    1. The Left will simply find another way to create a Constitutional crisis. It is in their DNA.

    2. We could have filibuster prof majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the Presidency, but if they throw up their hands when a single district judge offers an opinion on anything then NOTHING matters, we’ve already lost. Why is this lost on conservatives like Soopermexican???

      We need to mock and then ignore the courts. They need to be put back in their place and I hope the States start doing this soon especially with their asinine decisions on abortion laws. “Thanks judge for your opinion, now where is that shredder again?”

  13. He’s just doing the thing that the census bureau told Ross to do in the first place. This isn’t something they cooked up in the past few days.

    Which really prompts the question… why didn’t they just do this—which is immune to litigation—in the first place?

  14. He can do that and augment it with data collected from the Census Bureau’s other efforts (i.e., not the decenial census called for in the Constitution).

  15. This a nice twofer. Trump gets the information he wants, and he can still give the Left The Presidential Finger at the same time.

  16. Thrilled that he is doing this getting very tired of him having to jump through hoops on behalf of all of us who belong here.

  17. Well, I agree that it’s not a bypass of the Supreme Court. So, that’s a good thing.

    I still don’t understand why he couldn’t have just articulated a non-pretexual reason for including it on the census though. Or why he didn’t just do that in the first place.

    This thoroughly creeps me out though:

    noting that many of these federal departments have ‘great knowledge’.

    I mean, yea, if it’s there I guess take advantage of it. But you sound a little too giddy that Big Fed has this much “great knowledge” on the individual citizenry.

    Can you please order them to destroy all that information once you’ve done a headcount of America?

      1. Well, I agree that it’s not a bypass of the Supreme Court.

        Meaning, he’s not doing an end-run around another branch of government who rightfully checked his actions, like he did with Congress by abusing the intent of the NEA.

        That’s good. It’s good that he’s not doing thing that should earn him impeachment for a change. I don’t know to what end this action will serve, but at least he’s coloring within the lines.

          1. Not really. He’s still not getting the citizenship question he wants, and the census is still not going to reflect accurately the way we need it to.

            He’s not doing anything wrong. But he’s also not doing anything useful insofar as the census was concerned.

            Again, I don’t know why he didn’t just offer a reason that wasn’t a pretext. All Donald had to do to bake the cake was follow the instructions. Why couldn’t he manage that?

                1. Were you convinced that Trump was going to grossly overstep his authority?

                  I’ll save you the trouble. That would be a “Yes.”

                2. No, I was convinced he was going to “work around” the problem instead of just doing it correctly. In which case, I was correct.

                  Because we still ain’t getting a citizenship question on the census. Even though it was absurdly simple to get one.

  18. What is the ultimate end goal with this? Just to let us know? Or is he going to try to limit apportionment or seek these people’s removal or make them THINK he’s going to seek their removal? What do we get that’s tangible? I guess it’s good to know, but what will the follow up be?

    1. You bring up a good point CBSIII (CBS?) Anyway, if apportionment is based on the census, how does this help? If Trump wants his final numbers to be used, then it’s right back to the courts.

      I see that Slantry is here… Slantry?

    2. You bring up a good point CBSIII (CBS?) Anyway, if apportionment is based on the census, how does this help? If Trump wants his final numbers to be used, then it’s right back to the courts.

      I see that Slantry is here… Slantry?

  19. He can get all the info from Wa., Or., Ca., NY…The DOL…They all get DLs now so they can vote..They could get all those lic. #s and cancel them…

  20. Does his new plan count in determining congressional seats/allocation?

    If not then it’s a waste of time.

    1. BTW I’m either late to the game or completely unobservant.

      When did you change back to disqus? I am usually logged into disqus anyway for other sites so I didn’t notice until today that you were using disqus again.

        1. In which case I’m unobservant.

          I am not here as often as I used to be and my avatar and screen name are the same.

    1. That thought crossed my mind as well.

      What guarantees do we have that they’ll actually turn this data over? What makes us think that California-based federal agencies haven’t already fired up the industrial shredders? And then what will they do with it? They can’t base apportionment on it.

  21. I hope they can get the information on the illegals. All of these states allow Illegal Aliens to have driver’s licenses:
    New York
    California
    Washington
    Colorado
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    Illinois
    DC
    Hawaii
    Delaware
    Connecticut

    1. I’m fed up..being hit at oh-dark-thirty on my way to work, and the POS didn’t even get ticketed, (much less, God-forbid, DEPORTED), cost me a ton in insurance fees.
      (PS, nice to see you, crow 🙂

      1. It will be nice seeing more of you around here. I believe Disqus has got this place rocking again.

        1. Thanks, i’ve been working late the last couple of months and haven’t had a chance to comment on here. Glad to see Disqus back.

    2. States that give licenses to illegals also have a provision in their law that prohibits sharing that data with the Feds. So Trump can’t use DMV records.

    3. States that give licenses to illegals also have a provision in their law that prohibits sharing that data with the Feds. So Trump can’t use DMV records.

  22. We’ll see if this works. As long as they don’t count for apportionment I don’t care how it’s done. They must know the addresses of the illegals so if they can deduct these numbers from the census total it’s a good thing.

    1. I don’t think they can use this new strategy for allocation of Congressional seats.

      Slantry is around today and maybe can give us some better answers but I would think the census is the only thing they will use in determining congressional seats.

  23. I have to disagree with Horowitz (and I guess Scoop too then). Trump not utilizing his executive authority here does not necessarily mean that he believes that he lacks that authority. Now if Trump hadn’t come up with another way to get the info and still didn’t exercise his authority…

    1. I disagree with Horowitz. Since Marbury v Madison, SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. Undo that, and SCOTUS isn’t co-equal, it’s subservient with no power. Instead of three branches with checks on one another, you’d have two branches and a suggestion box.

      There has to be an arbiter, and that is the court. At the same time, SCOTUS is out of line because judges are out of line.

      These announcement is a joke. Who is going to correlate all that data? Even if some of the data is more accurate, it is not more complete and has zero to do with the census question. The govt lawyers screwed this up in court and the court even allowed them to come back with a better answer. Instead, they’re punting with this bait and switch.

    2. It’s not that he lacks authority. Clearly he doesn’t. But by not challenging the Supreme Court on his authority, it implies the Supreme Court is the true authority.

      But that said, I just don’t think that’s the fight Trump wanted to make at this point. He would rather have the citizenship data at this point which is why I like his announcement. That is a very important goal too.

      1. I think he will wait until he is in his second term before he makes a substantial challenge on judicial authority. Seems like a political call at the moment. In the meantime you can bet they are making a long list of all the judicial nonsense this administration is having to put up with so when the time comes.

      2. I don’t really buy that implication either, Scoop. My concern now, though, is how this will all shake out with regards to apportionment.

        1. The question would never affect apportionment. The Constitution reads “all persons” so they were going to be counted for apportionment regardless. The question would give us real data on how non-citizens are warping representation and affecting us in other ways.

          1. I thought the main purpose of putting that question back was to actually take on the reapportionment fight (amendment?) Don’t know where the heck I got that idea. Thanks TXG.

  24. “Not too much to ask.”

    Indeed. It IS not too much to ask. And Thank God we finally have a President who has the guts to say it out loud, without a hint of apology or qualification.

    Will this make the Left go nuts? Of course. But they’re already there.

    1. No, it will not make us “go nuts” as the Census Bureau has said it can collect citizenship records from the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department and US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Just like it has been since, oh, I dunno, DECADES! This is pretty much the way it’s been under five Republican prezzies and three Liberal Presidents. Basically Trump just gave you a thing we’ve already had in place and nobody really had a problem with.

      We can fake anger if it’ll make you feel better: “GRRR! ORANGE BUCKET DID BAD THING!”

      Ha-Ha. No we’re good here.

      How are you? 🙂

    2. No, it will not make us “go nuts” as the Census Bureau has said it can collect citizenship records from the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department and US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Just like it has been since, oh, I dunno, DECADES! This is pretty much the way it’s been under five Republican prezzies and three Liberal Presidents. Basically Trump just gave you a thing we’ve already had in place and nobody really had a problem with.

      We can fake anger if it’ll make you feel better: “GRRR! ORANGE BUCKET DID BAD THING!”

      Ha-Ha. No we’re good here.

      How are you? 🙂

    3. No, it will not make us “go nuts” as the Census Bureau has said it can collect citizenship records from the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department and US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Just like it has been since, oh, I dunno, DECADES! This is pretty much the way it’s been under five Republican prezzies and three Liberal Presidents. Basically Trump just gave you a thing we’ve already had in place and nobody really had a problem with.

      We can fake anger if it’ll make you feel better: “GRRR! ORANGE BUCKET DID BAD THING!”

      Ha-Ha. No we’re good here.

      How are you? 🙂

  25. I am not sure all of this matters in the end. In one sense, we are expecting the Census to be completely accurate. Do we really think we are going to get honest answers from people here illegally? They skip out on their hearing dates and melt into society, never to be heard from again. Do you think they are going to respond to a census question, whether it is explained to them it won’t necessarily get them deported or not, in an honest way? The media already tries to portray Trump as Hitler rounding up Jews to put them in ovens. I doubt this instills any confidence in these people that he has no motive to deport them. Somehow, I think these agencies do have accurate information on how many non-citizens are here, despite being told over and over that it is a static 12-20 million. It has to be over 30 million at this point, and I am sure it is well over. They at least know which ones skipped out on their temporary visas. Let’s stop all of the semantics. Questions on a census form are not going to solve our problems. Trump is the head of the Executive Branch of Government. We have laws on the books that can effectively deal with this problem, and he as the absolute power to enforce them. Start deporting people. I saw that was in the plans for this weekend. Let’t get it done. Talk is cheap. Action is what is needed. If nobody is willing to take action, then we will be perpetually dealing with a problem that continues to grow larger by the day.

    1. then we will be perpetually dealing with a problem that continues to grow larger by the day.

      Yea but it makes for great campaigning doesn’t it.

      1. I don’t disagree. I just believe this issue is indicative of our ultimate demise as a nation. If we cannot agree on things like people needing to apply to become citizens and that killing kids in the final stages of birth and even after is criminal, then we are so far removed from civility that there is no hope for us. Unless there is someone that cold get elected that would push through these issues despite the media noise and effectively explain their policy, then nothing will change. I don’t believe that person could ever get elected, so I revert to my original point. We are done. The only question is how much time is left. I hope I am able to escape the planet before it runs out.

  26. I used to follow everything Daniel Horowitz said and wrote. I gave up on that when each time I read his pieces I came away very despondent and down in the mouth. It’s not that he is wrong on the runaway judiciary, but at times there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. I’m not sure what Horowitz is suggesting-that Trump and Barr should just ignore the courts rulings. At the same time the left is claiming that Trump is lawless.

    1. Scoop, there are comments just disappearing from the site. I know for a fact that there were some replies to my comment, but they have disappeared now.

      1. I just happened to scroll down far enough in this post to notice. :thumbup: Discus certainly has it’s issues, but I liked it better than most comment systems.

      2. I just happened to scroll down far enough in this post to notice. :thumbup: Discus certainly has it’s issues, but I liked it better than most comment systems.

        1. Oh, right, you’re on human time. Duh. It probably would only feel like 24 hours to your species.

  27. I’m not happy about this. Trump did sort of wave the white flag and he did the same with the budget his first year. He puffs his chest then caves. I’m not disowning Trump but this ain’t a good thing.

  28. Obummer was well known as the Deporter in Chief in his inner circle and the MSM. Yet, DT wants to do it and he is labeled a racist bigot wanting to tear families apart.

  29. But only the actual Census numbers would be actionable in court as regards representation/redistricting/etc., yes? The Census is used for apportionment, not some hybrid or additional number generated by the administration, right? If so, then who cares, the libs still won on this one.

    1. The question was never going to affect apportionment because the Constitution specifically mentions “all persons,” unqualified. The purpose was to get a real figure on number of non-citizens warping representation through apportionment.

      You’re still right though, this is weak tea. First, who is going to receive all this data and correlate it among 100+ databases? That’s a huge job. Second, massive numbers of illegals use stolen identities, so how are they going to be captured in these databases?

      This is flat out surrender on this issue. I’m all for them using the databases, if they can find money and people to normalize that data, but that has zero to do with the census question which should be asked. The gov’t attorneys mucked it up. All they had to say was the question was asked before.

  30. I really don’t understand what is so controversial about illegal immigration. Common Sense dictates that there has to be a process followed to become a citizen, otherwise there is no barrier to citizenship and borders are merely lines drawn on a map. No other country on Earth deals with this issue to my knowledge, certainly not to the extent we do. I realize this is the primary destination if you want a good life, but that doesn’t mean the price of admission is discounted. Plenty of people follow the law to get here the right way. Those people have the right to vote, and I am sure most if not all of them frown on others cutting in line. The rest of us that should be able to vote are already citizens, and I know most are against people coming here without following our laws. Seems to me that enforcing immigration law is a winner all day long. Why do we tip toe around doing what makes sense to the most sane people? Just do what you have to do. The media is always going to cry foul when things don’t go their way, but most of what they advocate for is pure insanity anyway. The consequence of failing to do what needs to be done is that at some point, there are going to be so many people here illegally that they will have enough influence to gain citizenship and vote for the politicians promoting the insanity. I would ignore the media to avoid that outcome.

  31. What we should be talking about is: Who took the citizen question off the census in the first place? Obama did. And the Republicans said nothing.

    1. Remember how important it was to re-elect those Republicans? They’re definitely better than the Democrats and we need them to stand up to the progressivism in the federal gover hahahahaahahaahahahahhahaahahahahahahahahaa.

    2. No. President Obama didn’t. Here is his census form from 2010-2017

      https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdfs

      The citizen portion of the questionnaire is asked in three questions on page 18. The citizenship question was removed from the short form in 1950 (a year before Obama was born) and every president since then was fine with that. Even the Republican prezzies.

      Question is who removed it in 2017 (the year Obama left office)? I think we need an investigation into that. Or two. or 20. Those are so much fun.

      1. This is from another thread on The Right Scoop from:

        Squirrel!y Girly • 20 minutes ago

        Listening to Levin. He says the citizenship question was on the census for nearly 175 years. Obama had it removed in 2010. What is the problem? How can one president suddenly remove it, without interference, after almost 2 centuries, and nine years later, the next president wants to add it back, and it’s controversial? If one can take it away just like that then the other can add it back on just like that.

  32. This is besides the point, but had Ted Cruz won in ’16, the Democrats / MSM would be fighting him 24/7 365 on this and everything else he tried. Cruz would have faired better in some cases because of his political experience and better understanding of legal matters.
    Trump had no political experience and has to rely on too many ‘advisors’.

    1. That’s the problem with voting in an outsider tho. He had no political people and those who he hired are pretty much just waiting out his term and doing everything they can to stop the unending of the status quo.

      Gonna need a bigger populist revolt.

    2. Considering his experience in legal matters, he would have done “considerably” better than Trump.

    3. I don’t know that is true, Landscaper, Cruz might not have fared very well w/ everything that has been thrown at Trump, just his personality..Trump seems to be a bulldog, won’t cave, and I don’t know that Cruz’ temperament would have sustained what would’ve been thrown at him, and his fam in this dog-eat-dog political arena..he caved after the convention. Did not show the strength needed to fight this baloney. Albeit his merits/credentials are impeccable..I just don’t know he’d have survived.

      1. The difference between Cruz responding to something & Trump responding is like night & day. Cruz can dish it out with class, without anything derogatory, yet completely make his point. He also explains things so anyone can understand.

        I think he handled Trumps classless tweet about his wife, accusations about his father as well as accusations of his many affairs with class & dignity…something that Trump doesn’t possess.

        1. I couldn’t agree w/ you more, Sam. I’m whole-heartedly in Cruz’ corner, no debate. I just think the crap from the Dems, as sleazy as they are in their fight, would be something so low for Cruz. Some people fight on such a low level, it’s painful to go there to fight them back. I didn’t see that Cruz was ready to get in the mud, and it’s not that I criticize him for that, I just think it might’ve cost him, his fam, and pretty much everything. He’s just not that guy….(And I admire him more than ANY politician I’ve ever considered for POTUS..it was as painful for me, as it was for him, to realize it wasn’t his time)

        2. I couldn’t agree w/ you more, Sam. I’m whole-heartedly in Cruz’ corner, no debate. I just think the crap from the Dems, as sleazy as they are in their fight, would be something so low for Cruz. Some people fight on such a low level, it’s painful to go there to fight them back. I didn’t see that Cruz was ready to get in the mud, and it’s not that I criticize him for that, I just think it might’ve cost him, his fam, and pretty much everything. He’s just not that guy….(And I admire him more than ANY politician I’ve ever considered for POTUS..it was as painful for me, as it was for him, to realize it wasn’t his time)

          1. ^5. Agree 100%.
            Cruz “wouldn’t” sink to their level. He can’t be drawn in like Trump when insulted, nor does he have Trumps fragile ego or everyone must love me syndrome.

        1. Haven’t really followed him since his run, but I was first disappointed when, at convention, he didn’t endorse Trump, (which was excellent) but then he dropped the ball after that, appeared weak, and everyone saw that. I believe it ruined his chances for a future run. He is an admirable upholder of the constitution, would make an excellent POTUS, in another time, another place. But I think it’s going to take a pitbull to fight the dirty Dems, and Cruz doesn’t have that in him. It’s just not in his make-up. And our society is not made up of decency and righteousness, not anymore. Our country is pretty much lost; will take something out of the ordinary to retrieve what’s been lost..we are in serious trouble.

    4. But he surrounds himself with the best people. Like Wilbur Ross. Who absolutely knows the correct way to making administrative changes in important documents that will aid the President.

  33. I used to follow everything Daniel Horowitz said and wrote. I gave up on that when each time I read his pieces I came away very despondent and down in the mouth. It’s not that he is wrong on the runaway judiciary, but at times there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. I’m not sure what Horowitz is suggesting-that Trump and Barr should just ignore the courts rulings. At the same time the left is claiming that Trump is lawless.

      1. No. You cannot imagine the problems I’ve had with disqus today. Disqus used to not allow you to post the same comment more than once, you got a warning that you already posted that.

        I use Firefox as my browser. Every time I have a microsoft update, which I have no control over, Firefox comes right behind them to also do an update. Microsoft updates slow Firefox down, then Firefox tries to fix it. Just went through that last night, and the disqus problems today. It’s not been fun. Please eliminate the 2nd post.

        PS- And here I am with the same problem as last time. I can only read 2-3 replies, and then have to go out of the article and back in again to see those comments.

      1. I haven’t heard or read anything from Deace in a long while. That’s surprising because they both are part of Conservative Review. Or should I say Conservative Review/Blaze.

      1. Yet we have a judicial ruling that the DOJ is not allowed to replace those lawyers, and appoint a new team on the Census question. I’ll go with sabotage by the lawyers. I would like to know who sent John Roberts the writing of the dead guy whose daughter found it on his computer after he died, which seemed to be Robert’s excuse for requiring justification for what he already said was a Constitutional question.

        1. Both judges gave the DoJ leave to renew their request to withdraw counsel (Hazel said he’d grant it if they gave certain assurances), and all of the lawyers that they wanted to represent them moving forward have already appeared in the case and were free to participate.

          My question is why did they try to substitute counsel 3 days ago in cases that they just mooted?

          1. “Both judges gave the DoJ leave to renew their request to withdraw
            counsel (Hazel said he’d grant it if they gave certain assurances),”

            Changing legal counsel in about every case is usually rubber stamped. Not so in the Trump case.

            Why would any judge require extra reassurances about anything. The SC said that it was legal to ask the question, but Roberts decided he had extra judicial info that Wilbur Ross was acting in a political manner, which thankfully the SC opposition argued that after that question was answered, there should have been no more questions on the table. Those in opposition to the Roberts ruling said, and it is now playing out before our eyes, the other courts would use the Roberts ruling which would have a negative outcome.

            Now the lower courts have moved into Robert’s territory. The DOJ is not allowed to change their legal team, unless the courts approve of their answers? Give me a break lefty Slantry.

            There are lawyers from the left and the right. You just happen to be the only one posting here, so some mistakenly take your legal advice to heart. You are a lefty, and always argue from the lefty side. I’d love nothing more than for a right leaning lawyer to post here, and argue his case against your lefty positions.

            1. I would be happy to speak with a lawyer of any persuasion about motions to withdraw as counsel in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

              1. Slantry, I know this isn’t your fault, but there is no one posting here that is a lawyer who takes the right leaning position, and who is willing to challenge you on your legal opinions. Therefore your legal positions as an attoney always go unchallenged, and your leftist view stands. Since there are no other right leaning lawyers here willing to challenge you, your legal opinions stand. As I said, it is not your fault. Wish some attorney from the right would challenge your opinions. There just isn’t anyone here to do that.

                1. I mean, I get that, but I honestly am not much of a lefty and I do try and generally stick to facts rather than opinion. When people don’t like those facts, they accuse me of being a lefty. Sometimes I express opinions and people say what they say, and that’s fine too.

                  As to this issue, the thing is that the southern and eastern districts have specific rules about motions to withdraw as counsel, which the DoJ didn’t even pretend to follow. I practice mostly in the southern and eastern districts and I’ve had these motions slapped back at me too; once you do them right, they always get granted. Perhaps there are issues with the courts, and perhaps they’re biased against Trump, but this particular issue is mostly one of some lawyers not having things together as well as they should. And in this case (at least until Trump just mooted it) and they were on an extremely fast discovery schedule and had motions due in days. Changing counsel in such circumstances is extremely unusual, and (this is opinion) it’s not unreasonable for the judge to request that prior counsel—who has been litigating the case for over a year, and through a trial—represent to the court that they will still be available for hearings if needed.

                  Put another way: motions to withdraw as counsel are usually unopposed because they’re usually not a big deal. Under the circumstances of this particular withdrawal, any attorney (right, left, communist, fascist, socialist, whatever) worth his salt would have opposed it.

  34. The Census has become a joke. According to Andrew Napolitano

    The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments constitutionally limit the only
    question that the census may ask, and the only question the recipient of
    the census must answer, to how many persons reside in the recipient’s
    dwelling.

    That will be the only question this household answers. However, in bold red letters with bright yellow highlighter, will will declare that we are indeed US citizens.

      1. I used to like him but he seems to have gone over an emotional cliff since his lover passed away.

  35. I heard that Charles Manson once asked an interviewer “Is it hot in here, or am I crazy?”

    Well, didn’t the red notification balloon used to push info without your having to refresh the page–or am I crazy?

  36. Screw it, I’m now voting straight Democrat. Atleast with the Democrats they’ll start implementing all their screwed up policies, which will hopefully start the Civil War that this country needs. All the Republicans do is talk about being big and bad and tough, and then they go sit down.

    1. Well, you are mostly correct, there. I just hope when it happens, it’s quick. Not the slow, deterioration/rotting from the inside we are seeing.

    1. I just heard a lady at the other end of the bar commenting on how fine she thinks your Disqus is. Keep up the good work, Kram.

    2. Me too…I checked in on RS this morning and BOOM..I was all hooked up and ready to go..no fuss, muss, or bother..I just continued on..wouldn’t have even realized we switched over, til Proud Nana told me..lol!

  37. One has nothing to do with the other.

    By all means, have federal agencies do their job and offer up data to …wait, where is the data going? That’s right, there is no agency for correlating data from other agencies. ICE and CBP are already overwhelmed, they can’t dedicate hundreds of people to normalizing data from scores of other agencies.

    …but have the question on the census. Whether it was deliberate on the part of the first set of government attorneys, they over-thought it, or they were incompetent (or a little of all three), their ‘justification’ was convoluted and didn’t emphasize the question had been asked for decades on the long form.

  38. Cultists don’t help Trump when they defend clear losses and attack those who want the president to do better.

  39. O/T. Will logging off of the now ex comment system effect the Disqus in anyway? I noticed at the top of the page the Icon for the old system, Word Press I think it is called.

    1. Hi Kram, I was logged off from word press for days , came here today and logged on to find disqus back which made my day,good luck my friend .

    2. My blocked members feature still works like a charm. Both on my tablet and phone. Yayyy
      😀

    3. Good question. Although we are back on Disqus, the top of my page shows the WordPress banner.

      1. I am somewhat leery about logging off until I am sure it will not effect Disqus.

          1. Allright on your authority and in full confidence of your knowledge. Here I go. Standby to standby.

          2. I survived. Hey love the AVI. My wife and I went to Tupelo a couple of weeks ago and visited the house that Elvis was born in. Very nice park and setup they created in Tupelo for Elvis fans.

            1. The retirement dream is the husband drives the tour buses for Graceland and I’d love to work there maybe behind the scenes decorating for the holidays, anything really. Every year we try to get there but with 6 dogs and a horse it’s only a dream right now.

  40. WTH is going on with the comments, now? I couldn’t log in, then when I clicked on something else, the Disqus suddenly brought me in.

        1. Scoop took an impromptu survey on a thread about staying with WordPress or going back to Disqus and I guess Disqus won. He might have a better answer if he stops by. Hope that helps

    1. Stay calm and always know where your towel is, it’s the first rule noted in the Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy.

  41. Horowitz is right, it’s time to draw a line in the sand in regard to the lower federal courts, but credit to the Trump administration for pursuing a legitimate count of our citizenry, even though illegal immigration remains unchecked.

  42. I think this is fine and don’t know why it wasn’t a thing since 2 years ago. What about all the people that have gotten away with no contact with any official and are here? What I don’t like is that Trump just bent over for the courts instead of doing what he has every right to do. This aggregation of governmental records along with the census question would make for a much clearer picture, but what do I know?

  43. Let’s empower the very agencies we distrust to give us information we need to trust filled with employees that hate America.
    Great idea.

    1. Agree. WordPress was a nightmare. I am no fan of discuss but WordPress was worse.

  44. Daniel Horowitz is 1000% right and Trump with his main advisors being the life long Democrats Kushner and Ivanka is just playing games with the American people…….as he pretends to be tough on immigration.

    1. excusez-moi? So GOOD to see you back, steph! Love that negative touch you got goin..nice to see TDS alive n well..I know you live to stir it up, sis…

    2. The ONLY thing that counts is action. Words are cheap. During his campaign, he promised to build the wall and to end illegal immigration. WHAT happened to those “promises”? Yeah, yeah. If Ted was president now, he also would have encountered opposition from Congress, but somehow I think Ted would have gotten it done by now.

      1. It’s not that simple Francis and you know it. Folks conveniently leave out what the courts have done and the inaction of congress. But, if Trump went at it alone, those same folks would be calling him a tyrant. Amazing.

        1. Haven’t even had coffee yet and laughing at the here we go again ” If Ted was president now “

          1. That always seems to come up with certain people. Maybe Cruz should change his first name to Panacea.

      1. I believe this President has met every optical and trick the RINOS and Democrats could have pulled

      1. Very seldom had any issues Hidyho. I hope it’s fixed as well for those who did have problems.

Comments are closed.