Plan B Forum

https://mynorthwest.com/1438262/dori-po ... -andy-ngo/

Dori: Out-of-control Portland Antifa sends Andy Ngo to ER with brain bleed

Ted Cruz calls for ‘legal action’ against Portland mayor
by Caitlin Yilek
| July 01, 2019 08:01 AM

Sen. Ted Cruz called for the Justice Department to investigate the mayor of Portland after a conservative journalist was attacked by Antifa members.
“To federal law enforcement: investigate & bring legal action against a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists,” the Texas Republican tweeted Sunday.

and I'm sure grandstanding Ted can show us a copy of the order. I'll keep waiting, but oubt he has any evidence at all.

Big RR wrote:and I'm sure grandstanding Ted can show us a copy of the order. I'll keep waiting, but oubt he has any evidence at all.

You see no civil rights violation with people being assaulted in the street with no police in sight? You see no conspiracy to deny certain people the equal protection of the law? Should there be a federal civil rights investigation?

I am responding to what Cruz said, namely "a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists" and, no, I see no evidence of any such order from the mayor. But perhaps Ted can supply it.

If he wanted to investigate the incident and how it happened, he could have worded it differently, but NO, Mr Grandstand had to say that the injuries resulted from and order of the mayor. If he cannot produce that order, he is just talking out of his ass--as usual.

If it's as described, then your average liberal has as little sympathy with the lunatic wing of antifa as your average conservative has with, for example, the KKK. I know plenty of conservatives, and we have a few on this board, who would be as horrified as I am at the actions of (say) Tim McVeigh.

If your point, lib, is to embarrass liberals because of the actions of some antifas, it's only valid if you equally own up to supporting the OKC bombing. I suspect you do not.

It's wrong for swarms of thugs to assault people.

Does this incident require any deeper analysis than that?

People being assaulted in the street with no policemen in sight happens all the time in every city in the nation--it is usually called a mugging.

A 'demonstration' in the USofA usually has several objectives: get time on local and national tv is typically the main objective. But some kind of physical confrontation with the opposition is usually right up there near the top.

snailgate.

Scooter wrote:It's wrong for swarms of thugs to assault people.

Does this incident require any deeper analysis than that?

Ted Cruz has spoken.

BTW... Senator Cruz is pictured on the left, below.

And if anyone is interested in the truth about this incident and the liberal reaction to it, take a look at this piece in The Atlantic.

Good article, Andy. I hope liberty and wes follow the link and read it. In case they don't, I want to highlight 2 brief passages from the article:

• There’s a reason the Daily Caller and company couldn’t find much evidence of liberal support for antifa: Despite the right’s effort to affix the term leftist to everyone from Joe Biden to Chairman Mao, there’s a vast ideological gulf between mainstream American liberals and antifa, an anarchist group that justifies its violence by rejecting the legitimacy of the state.

  The irony in all this is that there’s one extremely prominent American figure who really does cheer political violence: Donald Trump. Imagine if publications such as the Daily Caller held the president to the same standard that they’re applying to liberals.

This is proof that some liberals are fascist. So I do not have a right to change my lawyer if I should want another lawyer.


Posted: Jul 09, 2019 6:05 PM

This is becoming tiring, folks. We have yet another instance where a federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama telling the Department of Justice they simply cannot switch legal teams concerning the citizenship question for the 2020 census

Lib - it's worth reading the reasoning of the judge.

As a general rule I'd agree with you on this issue: but the government is the one who has been pushing this case for a speedy disposition all along based on their need to get the forms printed. The rules for the Southern District of NY (and, AFAIK, other Federal districts) require that requests to withdraw counsel gain the court's approval which is based on, among other things, provision of 'satisfactory reasons' for the withdrawal of counsel. These the government has not given: and in fact the judge notes that they haven't given any reasons at all.

Seems legal to me.

ETA:

From 2007 to 2009, Furman was detailed to the Office of the Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, where he served as Counselor to the Attorney General.

Clearly a commie.

There are an array of circumstances under which a court would refuse to allow a change of counsel - the right to counsel of choice is not absolute especially when the client is abusing the process in some way.

Change of counsel is all too often used as a tactic to delay the proceedings. It is the Court’s role to make sure the proceedings move along towards resolution, to the benefit of all parties — and as claimed here - the American people.

Here he granted the Motion in part where sufficient reasons were provided (counsel no longer with DOJ), and denied it without prejudice, to its being appropriately supported. So, just doing his job, but heaven forbid anyone tell a Trumpanzee “no.”

First of all, nothing forbids adding counsel to the government's team, and as I understand it the court allowed the would-be substituting counsel to enter their appearances.

It will be very interesting to learn what the actual reasons are for withdrawing counsel's application. Option 1 is their client has been lying to them and/or the court and they cannot ethically continue the representation. Option B is their client is asking them to make representations and arguments to the court that contradict their previous assertions, so they would have a serious credibility problem going forward, while new counsel could pretend to have some previously undiscovered basis for including the citizenship question o the census that's totally not a fabrication we just came up with but is totally legit, really, believe us, we're not just trying to intimidate immigrants, depress the count of minority populations and ratfuck the redistricting process.