Recent content by Asita

I’m not going to litigate the word "held," because that is not the issue. Whether or not you use that wording does not change the underlying question, and it does not create a contradiction in my position. The question is not whether people are physically detained under ICE detainers in...

To which I respond with the conclusion you're using that proposition to push: " meaning doing that is not considered universally unconstitutional". Because for all that you want to put emphasis on the word "held", the subject is not whether or not you said they were "universally constitutional"...

Right there: "The point of the matter is that people today are held due to ICE detainers meaning doing that is not considered universally unconstitutional".

And yet again: you prove my point: You clearly do not understand what I'm saying, because you keep on substituting what I say with a strawman that says something completely different. I have not once said that ICE detainers are unconstitutional in themselves. What I said is that the courts...

Really? We're doing this twice in one exchange? Shall we review what you said? That very clearly argues as if the subject of contention is whether or not they can be issued, as you argue they wouldn't exist at all if you were wrong. Again, very clearly and unambiguously is arguing as if the...

You. Are. Not. Corrrect. How many times do I have to say that? I have told you repeatedly and unambiguously that your characterization of my position as "the method the settlement took justifies scrutiny, the end result infinitely less so, but now it's rescinded so there's nothing to...

Thank you for proving my point that "rather than addressing the argument itself, you're repeatedly trying to explain why people supposedly arrived at it. You're substituting speculation about people's motives for engagement with their evidence" and then using that as a pretext to dismiss that...

I’m not going to keep discussing what you think my or anyone else's underlying motivations are. That’s not the question and it’s not productive. In fact, much of what you're doing amounts to an appeal to motive: rather than addressing the argument itself, you're repeatedly trying to explain why...

No, that's just you trying to spin doctor a desired interpretation through quote mining. For goodness sake, take a good look at the text that immediately preceded it: "The concern is not whether or not Trump had an underlying claim stemming from the Littlejohn leaks. The concern is whether...

Because by any reasonable standard, I didn't have to. The settlement itself was the focus of my first post in this exchange. In that post I laid out red flags for it, such as while Blanche et al are mischaracterizing it as a settlement by the IRS, it appears to have simply been dictated by DOJ...

No, this is exactly the mischaracterization I just spent an entire post addressing. I explicitly objected to reducing my position to "the process justifies scrutiny but the outcome itself is not especially concerning," and then laid out at length why I think the outcome remains probative rather...

Shall we review the stuff that you keep on ignoring? Let's start with the context in which this case occurred. 1) Blanche specifically was told long ago that - given his history as Trump's former defense attorney - as acting Attorney General he should recuse himself from cases involving Trump...

See, this is exactly what I mean. You clearly do not understand what I'm saying, because you keep on substituting what I say with a strawman that says something completely different. I have not once said that ICE detainers are unconstitutional in themselves. What I said is that the courts have...

Now you're going too far in the other direction in your misunderstanding of the point. And frankly, you seem to be going out of your way not to understand it and avoid substantively engaging the issues this case faced. It's not "This is simply weak to corruption", it's that there are legitimate...

You're still shifting the discussion away from the actual point being raised. We aren't claiming that Article III concerns automatically prove criminal corruption, or that Trump’s underlying grievance is fabricated. The point is narrower: the circumstances here create legitimate grounds for...