is it illegal for someone from another country to record them and then post it here for hosting? would that cause problems for derr slobberfuhrer? eta: this is a legitimate question. i'm not suggesting anyone do it, i just want to know the answer.
it's very strange to me that you're not allowed to have a record of certain government proceedings. it makes me suspicious. do they record these things and produce them? what's the purpose of being so extremely secretive if you're also going to broadcast it on zoom?
It looks like the little girl admin lawyer may have been replaced in these proceedings. I did see a "Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Change/Withdrawal of Attorney" docket entry last week with the new guy's name. He, too, is awfully young-looking though, and he's the only lawyer up (whereas the unions have several).
Judge immediately said her plan is to grant the new amended complaint, AND to grant the preliminary injunction. She literally just said that right after the lawyers introduced themselves, before ANY discussion has taken place. This is so wild. Not even pretending.
After reading some of the unions' own exhibits out loud herself re: The painful suffering declarations of union employees, the judge snottily points out that the previous lawyer wasn't prepared to discuss the merits in the case, so she wants to discuss them now. Not sure why she's bothering. She's doing all the talking and making the unions' case for them.
Young lawyer dude for the admin steps up to the mic and there's a noticeable nervous catch in his throat. He's trying to make his case around a basis of appropriations, and he is starting to use terms the judge is not familiar with like "corner case" and "appropriations riders." More or less, I think, since there are no appropriations from Congress to carry out these activities (due to the government shutdown), then they cannot statutorily be carried out. He's getting a little more confidence as he goes, but the judge keeps interrupting (she is way out of her depth and will need the unions to rescue her).
it's very strange to me that you're not allowed to have a record of certain government proceedings. it makes me suspicious. do they record these things and produce them? what's the purpose of being so extremely secretive if you're also going to broadcast it on zoom?
The hearing is being recorded by the court, at least they said so at the beginning, though I don't know where it can be accessed later.
The judge is now trying the "firing people for political differences" tack and the young lawyer guy is doing fair enough refuting that, but we all know it's futile. "So you think it's okay, the motivation is appropriate when he [Trump] says I can't believe the radical left gave me this opportunity," she quips. The lawyer basically says yes, and cites another case about Trump's Tweets and Truths, and the judge is unaware of TruthSocial and had to have this young lawyer explain it to her. It's worth reminding that this lady judge is not young. "Tweeted or Xed or Truthed, it's a whole new world" blah blah. The lawyer tries to get back to the merits (like the judge was harping on so much in prior hearings) and talking about how Trump can target these positions based on various policies etc.
The only thing worse than an NPR liberal is an NPR conservative. Not because their beliefs are worse than a liberal's, but because I can only conclude that if you consider yourself "conservative" but still believe everything NPR says then you are USDA Prime niggercattle and cannot be saved
Not quite. A lot of people were content to live their lives and be left alone, but were forced into politics because politics would not leave them alone. There are probably a lot of people in this thread who did not care about politics until their video games, books, movies, and television shows started lecturing them. It is one thing for your parents, teachers, politicians, and so on to wag their finger at you. That is part of life. It is another thing for there to be no escape from overbearing, finger-waggling authority.
That's true, divisive politics have been forced on all of us in the last decade plus. But, I was speaking to a separate thing, the reason why people will freak out when they hear a political story on NPR or MSNBC or CNN, etc, and then upon further examination, the facts about that story turn out to be not exactly the way it was presented to them. The reason why people get so emotional when you press them on the facts.
Do you guys think they’ll try to stage a color revolution during the EBT chimpout? No Kings and the Portland Antifa riots were both miserable failures.
it's very strange to me that you're not allowed to have a record of certain government proceedings. it makes me suspicious. do they record these things and produce them? what's the purpose of being so extremely secretive if you're also going to broadcast it on zoom?
yeah, it's very fishy. should be able to record it and share it around. That's not the case though, and would probably get you fucked in the ass legally if you tried. I am certain you would get banned if you posted it here.
The hearing is being recorded by the court, at least they said so at the beginning, though I don't know where it can be accessed later.
The judge is now trying the "firing people for political differences" tack and the young lawyer guy is doing fair enough refuting that, but we all know it's futile. "So you think it's okay, the motivation is appropriate when he [Trump] says I can't believe the radical left gave me this opportunity," she quips. The lawyer basically says yes, and cites another case about Trump's Tweets and Truths, and the judge is unaware of TruthSocial and had to have this young lawyer explain it to her. It's worth reminding that this lady judge is not young. "Tweeted or Xed or Truthed, it's a whole new world" blah blah. The lawyer tries to get back to the merits (like the judge was harping on so much in prior hearings) and talking about how Trump can target these positions based on various policies etc.
Young lawyer points out you'd be forcing the government to pay people who are not working and for services that are not needed and are not wanted. "It's NOT arbitrary and capricious, in fact it's good policy," he says. That large-scale RIFs are well within the Executive's office. Young lawyer dude is definitely doing better in his presentation than the little girl lawyer we had before.
Judge talks over the lawyer and the court reporter has to shriek out that she couldn't hear. Judge admits "that's my bad." Blah blah there have been RIFs before the shutdown, we'll talk about that later blah. And here come the union lawyers.
The union lawyer starts declaring that the defense didn't respond to something and that is unlawful. The judge makes agreeable noises while she talks. She could literally be standing there making meows and woof-woofs and the judge would agree with her. She's talking about the reliance interests of the federal employees and "that is per se unlawful" (she didn't say union employees though, hmmm).
"The reasons have to match the actions," and she insists what's been put out for reasons are political, partisan retribution. Also she says a lapse in appropriations is NOT the same as a lack of statutory authority. "Does not justify permanently eliminating those positions." She keeps saying the defense (Trump admin) has no argument.
She points out that removal of an individual is not the same thing as a RIF that eliminates positions. Um, yeah?
Back to the lapse in appropriations, and judge interrupts, "Is that the same as an appropriations rider?" Union lawyer seems not to know, or at least says no and she's not sure what the admin lawyer was talking about, essentially. She regroups to say they are awaiting Congress's action in appropriations. The lapse may justify furloughs but not RIFs, or so she thinks.
That can at least be argued as objectively true. Trump wants the government open. He didn't say 'Fuck those Niggers, let em starve.' He even arranged funding for WIC.
Its just pure dishonesty to try and cause a chimpout.
yeah, it's very fishy. should be able to record it and share it around. That's not the case though, and would probably get you fucked in the ass legally if you tried. I am certain you would get banned if you posted it here.
i have absolutely no intention of doing that, but i actually do appreciate every kiwi here trying to keep me from getting my ass sent to mutt's law jail, or getting banned. my own curiosity gets ahead of me sometimes with these kinds of questions. it doesn't even make sense, it's not like a russian couldn't just jump in and record it, if it's some kind of stupid security thing. i wonder if it's to prevent people from getting ahead of an official statement from the parties involved, or the government or something. oh well.
~46:40-47:30 - Nick Fuentes displays his petty nature with Joe Kent attacking him.
Tucker says "But like, who cares?"
Nick "Let's talk Joe Kent,"
Tucker "I mean you attacked me constantly, I don't really give a shit I want to meet the guy"
Nick "Well you attacked me first too."
Tucker "No,no,no,no. But I'm - What I'm saying is I'm not whining about it. I'm just saying like, so? You know what I mean?"
Nick "Well, I don't say so."
Basically Nick is still stuck in his Nick the Knife persona despite becoming much more mainstream. Tucker is confused by this. The Right I think can be seen as much more forgiving than compared to the Left, so not setting aside their differences for a common enemy seems unreasonable to Tucker. Pretty interesting.
Later, Nick talks about being backstabbed by Joe Kent despite a pact to not disavow one another. Joe Kent says "I condemn Nick Fuentes, especially on Israel." Nick confronts him, Joe later states. "Nick Fuentes with his focus on race and religion does not fit with my message of inclusive populism." Nick replies, "That doesn't sound like American populism to me. Sounds like bullshit."
Tucker and Nick talk about Joe Kent and why Tucker is allied with Joe Kent.
Nick Fuentes says he was on a 'no fly list' for one year in 2022-2023.
Tucker talks about how he considered Nick Fuentes was doing the 'David Duke'. Destruction by association.
Nick "Yeah but so, let me ask you this. So, if I'm supporting Joe Kent, I'm David Duke bear hugging. If I attack Joe Kent, I'm attacking the only sincere America First movement."
Tucker "I get it. I mean, I do get it. And I just want to say I love Joe Kent. Having been denounced by a lot of people I like, I know what that feels like."
Tucker then talks about being denounced by a woman, I think Candance Owens, and how it hurt his feelings. He then talks about Glenn Greenwald being one of his favorite people, and he was denounced by him for ten years. Some of the criticisms from Glenn were correct. Tucker later says he doesn't really care though, because he doesn't want hurt feelings to govern his behavior.
Tucker is figuratively telling Nick Fuentes to stop being a petty bitch.
Nick Fuentes says he doesn't take it personal, and says it's about winning.
Still campaigned for Kamala Harris btw. Who could forget these busty naturals?
Nick Fuentes doubles down on his Joe Kent criticisms. Specifically says inclusive populism is backsliding into GOP slop. Endorses white nationalism and antisemitism.
Tucker says "I think what is bad is saying that all jews are guilty or are destructive. I believe no one inherits sin or virtue based of their DNA, even if I agree with a lot of your points." Tucker basically says he is anti-zionism, not necessarily antisemitic.
Nick says "As a Catholic, I could not agree more with you, but..."
Talks about the idea that neoconservatism and Israel has nothing to do with Jewishness is foolish. Talks about how Israel is essentially a ethno-nationalist state supported by Neoconservatives and Jews and the U.S.
Nick Fuentes says "You talk about how Identity Politics are a bad thing...I think it's reality."
Tucker agrees, "Identity is reality. Absolutely. You can't have a country of 350 million this diverse where it's just like...waring ethnicities because it's like...Rwanda soon."
Nick and Tucker talk about the origins of Neoconservatism.
Nick "I think you have said, it's the neocons, it's the neocons, and I have said I think that neoconservatism where does it arise from? It arises from Jewish leftists who were mugged by reality when they saw the surprise attack in the Yam Kapoor war."
Tucker "That's a lot of it for sure. But then how do you explain Mike Huckabke, Ted Cruz, and they're a lot like that. john Bolton, I've known them all. George W. Bush, like Carl Rove, I mean all people I know personally who I've seen like be seized by this brain virus and they're not Jewish. Most of them are self-described Christians. And Christian zionists. Like what is that? And I can just say for my self, I dislike them more than anybody. Because it's Christian heresy and I am offended by that because I am a Christian. I'm pissed at the neocons. I've said that a million times. I've been mad since December of 2003 when I went to Iraq. So like I went and hassled or asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz cause that seemed like a sitting senator who's like serving for Israel by his own description."
"I'm not going at MTG, like I was a friend of hers. Why go after MTG and not Ted Cruz?"
Bout an hour in, this has been the most interesting discussion by far. No pressing on the real controversies around Nick such as Ali Alexander, Catboys, Jan 6th, or his endorsement of Kamala Harris. I doubt it will show up. going to go to the gym and listen to the rest, I'll fill in if anything else interesting pops up.
Do you guys think they’ll try to stage a color revolution during the EBT chimpout? No Kings and the Portland Antifa riots were both miserable failures.
it's very strange to me that you're not allowed to have a record of certain government proceedings. it makes me suspicious. do they record these things and produce them? what's the purpose of being so extremely secretive if you're also going to broadcast it on zoom?
Courts don't allow this stuff because they already record everything for the official record, because sometimes it's to protect people's privacy during proceedings, and because they don't want outside recordings to influence people's behaviour during proceedings or somehow disrupt proceedings.
