Lack Of Standing, Much?

Some knowingly sloppy legal filing on the part of the anti-Trump left in an effort to be seen to do something to fight President Trump.

Politico: A Virginia couple is asking a judge to block Trump from tearing up the East Wing

A Virginia couple has gone to court to try to block President Donald Trump from proceeding with demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a new ballroom.

Charles and Judith Voorhees filed a motion in Washington federal court Thursday afternoon, asking a judge to halt any further damage to the White House while the legality of the project is assessed.

There's some definite problems with this court filing.

First, there's no complaint to start the case, it is simply a motion for an injunction without any support nor any brief backing it up. Sloppy and it should be dismissed out of hand for that alone.

Second, for its basis, it cites a law that specifically exempts the White House from the law. Not a winning argument, that, especially when you're seeking an injunction and once of the main elements in the granting of an injunction is the seeker's likelihood of prevailing in court.

Third and most importantly is the lack of standing.  Standing means you have a dog in the particular dog fight you are complaining of, and they simply do not have it in this one.

A couple of progressives in Virginia have no standing to even bring the motion at all regarding construction at the White House. I also see no record that they filed such a motion when Obama paved over an area to make a basketball court and put a bowling alley into the White House, which is most curious.

If you argue that they do because its the people's house, then why were people who merely wandered through Congress given federal charges for trespassing there on January 6?  After all the legislature is clearly the people's house, far more so than the White House, neh?  

In short, this is an ineffectual stunt designed to attract attention, or to try and draw a fellow-traveler Democrat judge who will ignore the law and throw an injunction into the mix because Orange Man Bad. 

Quite simply, the lawyer who filed this dreck should know better and should be sanctioned for this nonsensical filing, but most likely will not be sanctioned. We will see if the case gets properly dismissed or not.

Lies, And Lying Liars, Who Lie: White House Cocaine Edition

"We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.”

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

We know members of the Biden Administration lie as naturally as breathing or perhaps even more naturally that that. 

The drama over cocaine being found in the White House has resulted in lies being snorted out of the White House with astonishing rapidity and regularity.

The most interesitng lies so far concern the constantly shifting location where the cocaine was actually found.

Red State:  Holy Coke: The White House Cocaine Story Changes Yet Again

The location of the cocaine discovery has now wandered from outside the White House, to inside the White House, to the White House lobby, to the White House library, to the West Wing, and now to the West Executive entrance, apparently with its final discovered place yet to be decided upon, depending on the needs of the narrative and likely to shield the bringer of said cocaine into the White House.

Why bother lying about where it was found? The claim that the Secret Service is unable to identify who left it, wherever it was in fact left, does defy belief and raises lots of questions as to the security measures protecting the White House.

Then again, why not bother lying about it?  Since this administration lies about just about everything, throwing a few lies and some misdirection about the cocaine found in the White House can make it a welcome distraction from other things they're lying about as well.

Obama's Full Court Press For Gun Bans Reaches The White House Website

Go to whitehouse.gov and you'll get the following screen:

Clicking the link brings you into the whitehouse.gov site proper, which has now been heavily politicized to push Obama's gun ban agenda:

Pretty pathetic, but sadly par for this president how he can't avoid politicizing even the White House webpage in his drive to distract from the economy and push for gun bans.

I wonder if this violates any campaign laws at all? Were he seated in the house it would violate the House's ethics rules, but Obama likely considers himself above any rules, or that rules are more sort of guidelines.

Regardless, its pretty darn disgusting to be using the White House site for divisive political campaign purposes and to spread lies about gun control and use the site to lobby Congress to push his leftist agenda.

Maybe Obama should take some tips and cues in interpersonal and campaign relations from another federal government website.

One Tone Deaf Administration

The Bush Administration has unnecessarily embroiled itself in a new scandal: that of the firing of the 8 United States District Attorneys by declaring that the were fired for performance reasons and then denying the possibility that the firings were political and possibly influenced by the White House.

Who gave the administration such asinine advice? The administration should have done what most employers do in similar circumstances: merely verify past employment and that the attorneys involved were no longer employed. To do otherwise in today’s hyper-partisan and hostile media environment was I=simply inane, and has created a scandal -- including the possibility of a Senior Justice Official taking the Fifth Amendment when questioned by Congress -- where one did not exist.. If necessary and when pressed the Administration could and should have simply announced that:

The United States District Attorney serve at will, at the will and pleasure of the Office of the President, and it was determined that they were no longer going to be retained for reasons which will not be discussed. The President appreciates their service and wishes them well.

That is all that should have been said and it would likely have headed off the entire brouhaha over performance issues, politics and what role if any the White house had in the decision.

Then when asked if politics had anything to do with it they, instead of heatedly denying it, should have responded: These are political appointments, so of course there are political considerations, once again we will not discuss the reasons for their removal but note that they serve at will, and the Presidnet thanks them for their service.

In doing so the administration would have likely headed off this current faux scandal, and also prevented casting these attorneys in a bad light due to claims they were fired for performance issues. In contrast, their current tone-deaf approach of blithely declaring the situation was purely due to performance issues, and without political considerations, has opened them to this attack by the Media and Democrats when it is almost unquestionable that politics did have some role in their firings.