Obamagate – How Obama administration apparently weaponized intel agencies for political attacks

‘Prejudicial’ to a party in what way? Look, you happen to be wrong. Discovery comes out all the time without roiling the jury pool, particularly as to civil trials. The point is that there was no showing of bias by Curiel and no showing of bias in the recent case. Remember what Roberts said as to ‘Obama judges’. Further, Trump was wrong to allege ethnic bias. That’s the point.

Its not bias that makes a judge deny your case – sometimes you’re just wrong.

Some of the bias against Trump shown constantly in this site is far and away more intense than any bias Trump might have had against Curiel. But the reality is that Curiel did something judges are loath to do; poison the jury pool with a lot of inadmissible evidence given to the media. The bias was all Curiel’s.

I’m not so sure. The person bringing a motion still has the burden of proof, not the other party. The appellate court directed the district court to respond in 10 days. That’s all, as far as I see it.

[quote=“Ridgerunner, post:204, topic:608276”]
Some of the bias against Trump shown constantly in this site is far and away more intense than any bias Trump might have had against Curiel. [/quote]

But that was not the question. And criticism of Trump is not evidence of bias – maybe he deserves criticism.

  1. If Curiel did what you said, that is a mistake not bias.
  2. How do you know this was even a jury trial?
  3. When’s the last time you heard of a civil trial being moved because they could not empanel an unbiased jury?
  4. Even if there was some bias on the part of Curiel it was wrong for Trump to play the ethnic card.

You ignore facts and dance around the issues.

1 Like

Again, I don’t claim to be a legal scholar, but when it comes to show cause orders, the burden is on the one receiving the order. The applicant has already met his burden. I realize this isn’t the same thing, quite, but when the Court of Appeals reminded Sullivan of a case in which this very point was decided against Sullivan’s position, and order him to tell them why he takes a contrary position, it pretty well tells you how this is likely to go.

1 Like

No, during a show cause proceeding the burden shifts from the movant to contemnor – if a reason is shown. It doesn’t start out that way. If the applicant had met a burden the court would have granted the emergency motion. That did not happen.

Interesting take from an attorney.

Title: Why Flynn’s Judge Has Some EXPLAINING To Do! Viva Frei Vlawg

US v Fokkers is cited against the backdrop of mandamus.
Generally, mandamus is warranted with actions akin to ministerial acts with no discretion. There is Mandamus and it’s counterpart, Prohibition.
A Writ of Mandamus if granted, compels a judge to perform an act.
Prohibition orders a judge not to perform an act.
Rule 48 is addressed by Fokkers. In this case, is granting the Motion an act with no discretion, or does the rule carve out exceptions where the motion does not present an issues with no discretion.

I have no idea.

1 Like

Hopefully that gives an outline of what to expect in the briefs and order on the Writ.

What’s a ‘quo warranto’?

In a general sense it is a challenge to an officials rights to hold office.

1 Like

Because Trump’s lawyers asked for one and were preparing for it.

It literally means something akin to “what gives you the right?” It’s a challenge from a superior court to a lower court to justify itself if it can.

I believe that the Obama Administration targeted Donald Trump. With so many officials complicit in this, it really illustrates how godless our country is becoming.


You know, I have researched Trump playing the ethnicity card as to the fruad suit against him. Your explanation that he had been treated very badly and that the judge was a member of an extreme Mexican-American association just do not fly. Trump just very badly blamed the judge’s heritage. Then he was caught and made it worse.

Trump’s explanations just do not fly. It wasn’t the judge allowing discovery to be publikc or anything like that.

" One of the most striking things about Trump’s attempt to discredit Curiel is the fact that Curiel has not always ruled against Trump. In February, 2014, Curiel denied nationwide class-action status to the plaintiffs, giving them class-action status in just New York, Florida, and California; he also narrowed the number of claims from fourteen to five. When Trump University countersued Makaeff, a separate judge allowed the case to go forward. When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, Curiel reduced her award for legal costs by more than five hundred thousand dollars, nearly forty per cent less than what she was asking. In 2016, when Makaeff asked to withdraw as a main plaintiff in the California lawsuit—citing health issues, public “barbs” from Trump, and an excess of publicity—Curiel allowed her to do so, but did not grant her request to be exempt from the possibility of having to pay for the time that Trump’s lawyers spent fighting her, or her request for an order preventing Trump from using her withdrawal as the basis for future litigation against her."

As I said, whether or not Trump felt the judge was biased against him, there was no reason for him to play the ethnicity card. Trump and his apologists are wearing no clothes.

More on Obamagate . . .

Flashback: Susan Rice Denied Knowing Anything About Surveilling Trump Transition Team

susan rice

Associated Press


20 May 2020

Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied knowing anything about the Obama administration surveilling members of the Trump transition team in a March 2017 interview, which has been proved false by recently declassified documents.

In a PBS Newshour interview on March 22, 2017, host Judy Woodruff asked Rice:

I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.

Rice responded:

I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

Nunes had said at a press conference earlier that day:

I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the President-elect and his team were I guess at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence, in what appears to be…intelligence reporting channels. … It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the President-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.

Recently declassified documents show that Rice did know that the Obama administration was surveilling incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. . . .


What does targeted even mean?

Tracking Kisleyak calls is routine. Tracking a call involving sanctions and why Putin didn’t retaliate is expected.
Everyone says it didn’t matter that Flynn called, it wasn’t illegal.
If Flynn told the truth I would say that is right.
He lied to the VP and Trump asked for his resignation.
He lied to Spicer, WAPO then the FBI.
He was hiding something wasn’t he?

That is your opinion. And anyone who spends any time here can quickly see how deeply biased your opinion is.

Yet ignore/minimize Trumps acquittal by the Senate. See my above comment…

Looking at Judge Sullivan’s orders and rulings on past cases where the government abused its prosecutorial powers and ruined innocent people (see Alssksn Senator Stevens case), he may not be allowing the DOJ to drop the case yet because he wants to find out exactly what went on with their corrupt prosecution of him.

For the lurkers who want to learn about another terrible case of the DOJ ruining a good man’s reputation please read about the Ted Steven’s case. Lots of similarities here.

Who, other than you and some other intensely biased media people, have “determined” Flynn persuaded Putin to change anything?

For a little historical context - it was the Obama admin who did the cheesy “easy button” reset with Russia, refused to arm our allies to defend against Russian aggression, and was caught on open mike saying “Tell Putin I will have more discretion after the election”. Of course, his buddies in the media never did their JOB and ask him “discretion to do what?”

Meanwhile under Trump we armed our allies, and have fought against Russian aggression.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.