Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Read this. Justice Roberts and Kennedy incredulous that Trump Administration believes that the most trivial omission or lie during the naturalization process is just cause to revoke citizenship 20-30-40 years after the fact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/supreme-court-naturalization.html?_r=0

[Dr. Strangelove]

Michael Flynn was directly warned about accepting foreign payments in 2014. Apparently he ignored those warnings. The DOD"s Inspector General has now launched an investigation into him.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/michael-flynn-foreign-payments-investigation/index.html

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL...I want fries with that burger...get to it...

[Da Geezer]

DSL:

Read this. Justice Roberts and Kennedy incredulous that Trump Administration believes that the most trivial omission or lie during the naturalization process is just cause to revoke citizenship 20-30-40 years after the fact.

c'mon Strange, read your articles before posting or don't comment. The case in question is summarized (from the article):

Wednesday’s case concerned Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb who said she had faced persecution in Bosnia. She was granted refugee status at least partly on that basis in 1999 and became a United States citizen in 2007.

Along the way, she apparently lied about her husband, saying she and her family had also feared retributions because he had avoided conscription by the Bosnian Serb military. In fact, he had served in a Bosnian Serb military unit, one that had been implicated in war crimes.

When this came to light, Ms. Maslenjak was charged with obtaining her citizenship illegally. She sought to argue that her lie was immaterial, but the trial judge told the jury that any lie, significant or not, was enough. Ms. Maslenjak was convicted, her citizenship was ordered revoked, and she and her husband were deported to Serbia.

Christopher Landau, a lawyer for Ms. Maslenjak said that the trial judge had applied the wrong standard and that she was entitled to be tried under the right one.

Much of the argument was concerned with what sort of causal relationship the government had to prove between the lie and the grant of citizenship.

So the DOJ lawyer has to defend the trial judge's instructions. And this case began long before Trump was even on the political horizon. The sensible result will be that SCOTUS holds that lies have to be material in order to be actionable. Your interpretation of the article isn't even close to the fact situation

[Jeff Buchanan]

Good catch ....... I see you are now carefully reviewing sourcing and the facts their in.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I do enjoy DSL's posts on the Trump idiocy but I tire of them.

In my lifetime, I don't think I have experienced a more inept president. The flip flops on postions, the reversals of plans, the self aggrandizment and excuse making are really awful.

I'm just waiting for that one catastrophic misstep that seems bound to happen.

[froot loops]

It's going to be a tiring 4 to 8 years Jeff. No matter what party occupies the White House, there should be stretches of time where you don't have to hear about a president other than maybe something in the evening news. Every effing day there is something new.

[entropy]

when I tire of hearing something, I stop listening for a period of time or stop hunting down that which I tire of..

[froot loops]

Yeah but you might be a better person than me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

DSL:

c'mon Strange, read your articles before posting or don't comment. The case in question is summarized (from the article):

Wednesday?s case concerned Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb who said she had faced persecution in Bosnia. She was granted refugee status at least partly on that basis in 1999 and became a United States citizen in 2007.

Along the way, she apparently lied about her husband, saying she and her family had also feared retributions because he had avoided conscription by the Bosnian Serb military. In fact, he had served in a Bosnian Serb military unit, one that had been implicated in war crimes.

When this came to light, Ms. Maslenjak was charged with obtaining her citizenship illegally. She sought to argue that her lie was immaterial, but the trial judge told the jury that any lie, significant or not, was enough. Ms. Maslenjak was convicted, her citizenship was ordered revoked, and she and her husband were deported to Serbia.

Christopher Landau, a lawyer for Ms. Maslenjak said that the trial judge had applied the wrong standard and that she was entitled to be tried under the right one.

Much of the argument was concerned with what sort of causal relationship the government had to prove between the lie and the grant of citizenship.

So the DOJ lawyer has to defend the trial judge's instructions. And this case began long before Trump was even on the political horizon. The sensible result will be that SCOTUS holds that lies have to be material in order to be actionable. Your interpretation of the article isn't even close to the fact situation

You sure this case began under Obama? I've been told repeatedly from numerous sources that Obama didn't enforce immigration laws.

[froot loops]

Open borders

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Federal probe into Fox News appears to be wider that originally thought. The Post Office (!) is now involved which makes one think 'mail fraud'. Previously been reported that the DOJ was looking into whether shareholders were made aware of Roger Ailes' 'shush money' going to his or O'Reilly's sex harassment victims.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/media/fox-news-federal-investigation/

[Da Geezer]

DSL:

You sure this case began under Obama? I've been told repeatedly from numerous sources that Obama didn't enforce immigration laws.

Well, I do know it takes more than 100 days for a case to reach the SC. This appears to be a case taken because there is a conflict in decisions reached by several Federal Appeals Courts

From SCOTUSblog: "Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th, 7th and 9th Circuits, that a naturalized American citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement."

This isn't that the "Trump Administration believes that the most trivial omission or lie during the naturalization process is just cause to revoke citizenship 20-30-40 years after the fact.". The Federal government is a party to the case, and the government's lawyer is doing his best to defend the holding of the 6th Circuit. I suspect the SC comes down 9-0 in favor of the appellant.

The best line during the questioning of the government attorney was from Ginsburg. ?This may be a simple-minded question, but how can an immaterial statement procure naturalization?? Old babe still has it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump says a "major major conflict" with N Korea very possible

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-exclusive-idUSKBN17U04E

[iam416]

The facts of the immigration case pertinent to the Geezer-DSL discussion:

In 2013, based on the allegedly false statements on her citizenship application regarding her earlier misrepresentations to immigration officials, Maslenjak was charged under 18 U.S.C. ? 1425(a) with naturalization fraud, or “knowingly procuring” her citizenship “contrary to law.”

Geezer with the clearly correct position. DSL's snarky defense countered with snark: the defendant was a white european, not the most reliable D voter, so of course Obama was gung ho against her.

So, "Justices incredulous at Obama Administration's Prosecution of Naturalized Citizen" is the more accurate headline.