Thank you,That's something , Even we Democrat young men don't get to see.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MhpHSs...AgY29sYmVydCAg




<O>

Booming economy when money is printed. The status quo is no longer going to hold water. The government must wrangle in the frivolous drunken spending.

Printing money is a made up economy. That is were we have been for the last 4 years.

The ultimate goal with tariffs is getting companies back in America and the American worker working again.

Further, the fed interest rate etc is not controlled by Donald. The fed farts the wrong way the market tanks.

If you mean the word itself its called a Comparative Adjective. Look it up you might learn something.

If you mean who is a looser then i'd say that is the Democratic party. Your party lost the White House and both houses of Congress against a man you have torn the country apart trying to villainize for nearly a decade.

What's your parties approval rating now, still down in the dumps at around 20%?

Meanwhile more Americans feel that the country is going in the right direction than have since 2004. :shucks:

As for these foreign entanglements. Your party has strung Ukraine along for years now. Never giving them enough to actually prevail against the Russian, no, they get just enough to just loose slowly because Ukrainian national survival is not what is important to your party but rather how much the Military Industrial Complex can profit from it and of course getting those all important kickbacks for the Big Guy. I don't agree with every move Trump is taking to end it but it will result in the Ukraine surviving. That's not what was going to happen if you people remained in charge.

The loser is not Trump. Even CNN poll has Trump with a high approval rating. :salute:

Those words, spoken by your President, made me truly sad:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/...jd-vance-visit

Markus

He can talk about it. It actually happening is a different story. I would not worry about it.

I hope you're right.

USA have an agreement with Denmark in which USA can place as many soldiers and weapons they want on that island-Furthermore USA have only themselves to blame-Right after WWII there were 60.000 + soldiers on Greenland-Today it is less than 400 men.

Markus

The agreement is to place soldiers and weapons if needed/want. I see no reason too and neither does Congress. Talk about a waist of tax payer dollars. Do not lose sleep over this.

Oh, do lose sleep over this - you have reason to. Trump is not rational, but emotional, as I say time and again: its about revenge for an offended sick ego. He wants to pay back to the Europeans. Namely the Germans, but the others as well.

https://www-faz-net.translate.goog/a..._x_tr_pto=wapp


I also wonder whether Trump really knows how "small" Greenland in fact really is. Standard maps blow its size out of proportions due to projection errors. This is how it really compares:


https://i.postimg.cc/L8JW4L2D/1.png


https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~...NDcwNQ(MjI1)Mg

Beryl Howell basically tells Trump to pound sand as he tries to unconstitutionally retaliate against law firms.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...290.36.0_1.pdf

C. The Instant Case
Finally, as is clearly laid out in the “Purpose” section of EO 14230, “issues of the Durham
investigation, the Fusion GPS report, and the Mueller Report are central to the EO.” Defs.’ Mot.
at 6; see also EO 14230, § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781. Defendants take issue with what they call the
Court’s “concerning and dismissive approach to the entire Durham Investigation” and “[t]he entire
Fusion GPS fiasco.” Defs.’ Mot. at 6. While styling this as an accusation about purported bias in
the Court’s “[c]onduct,” id., at its core, this objection appears to be that the Court has not given
sufficient deference to how President Trump views these and other events as “dishonest and
dangerous activity of the law firm,” EO 14230, § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781, and “actions that
threaten our elections, military strength, and national security,” Fact Sheet: President Donald J.
Trump Addresses Risks from Perkins Coie LLP, The White House (Mar. 6, 2025),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-shee...trump-adresses
risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/. While the President and his administration are promoting an
expansive view of presidential authority and claimed that any decisions purportedly made in the
name of national security are judicially nonreviewable, see, e.g., Tr. of Mar. 12, 2025, Temporary
Restraining Order Hr’g (“TRO Hr’g Tr.”) at 30:6–35:12, ECF No. 22; see also id. at 45:23–48:11
(defense counsel explaining defendants’ position that “the President has that power, and that it is
the right and prerogative of the President as the sole individual vested with Article II authority to
exercise that prerogative”), that legally debatable claim is at the heart of the challenge in this case,
see, e.g., id. at 18:7–21:6 (plaintiff’s counsel articulating position that the President’s conduct
violated fundamental constitutional rights and that the use of “the ‘national security’ words are a
pretext”); id. at 62:24–64:22 (plaintiff’s counsel further articulating plaintiff’s position that the
President’s actions exceeded his constitutional authority). The mere fact that the Court, in an
emergency hearing on a temporary restraining order held less than 24 hours after the filing of the
motion, did not immediately adopt defendants’ legal arguments about the level of deference owed
to the President, even when a national security justification is asserted, does not mean bias exists
when foundational constitutional principles and norms are also at stake.
Moreover, defendants’ motion mischaracterizes the discussion of Fusion GPS and the
Mueller investigation. While noting possible “big differences of view” on these topics, the Court
took “at face value” “[t]he President’s perspective” on the issue and used this viewpoint to evaluate
the likely legality of EO 14230. TRO Hr’g Tr. at 32:15–33:16; see also id. at 33:21–43:14
(questioning defendants’ counsel about aspects of the legality of the order). The Court recognized
that President Trump is “certainly entitled to his own beliefs, entitled to his preferred causes, and
he is entitled to hold tight to his own dislikes.” Id. at 103:19-21. As a legal matter, however, the
Court found at this stage that “[t]he Constitution protects all [Americans] . . . from the exercise of
[the President’s] targeted power based on those dislikes, to bring the force of the federal
government down on the lawyers representing his political opponents and challengers to his
political actions, as he has done here.” Id. at 103:22–104:1.
As this case continues, pursuant to the briefing schedule jointly proposed by the parties,
Joint Status Report ¶ 3, ECF No. 25, and adopted by the Court, Order, ECF No. 26, the parties will
have the opportunity to present relevant evidence and legal arguments, which will receive full,
fair, and impartial consideration, as does every case before this Court. To the extent the parties
disagree with the final judgment entered, the normal judicial process of appeal applies. See FED.
R. APP. P. 4. Defendants’ disagreements, no matter how strong, with this Court’s preliminary legal
determinations simply provide no basis for disqualification. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons addressed above, defendants’ motion to disqualify this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 455, ECF No. 34, which relies only on speculation, innuendo, and basic legal
disagreements that provide no basis for disqualification of a judge, must be denied. Therefore, it
is hereby—
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Judge Beryl Howell, ECF No. 34, is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: March 26, 2025
__________________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge

Do judges back judges whether right or wrong? Legitimate question. It has been well known since the inception of a badge that there is police collusion. Doe this extend to the bench in some cases?

In a word, no. This decision can be appealed to the DC Appeals Court which will make a ruling on it based on the merits and legal president, and that ruling can be further appealed to the SCOTUS who may or may not take the case. In general, the SCOTUS doesn't make arguments for or against, but rules on the arguments presented to them.

Trump just lost by 2 to 1 a DC Appeals Court ruling over the AEA case presided over by Boasberg and the injunction which still stands. I've been trying to get the actual Court documents on that to show the opinion arguments, but I don't have the header info to search with.

It's Article 3 powers to interpret the law.

"In a word, no." My ass! 'Kids for Cash' comes to mind.