Trump refuses to release documents to Maine secretary of state despite judges order

[workinclasszero]

Trump refuses to release documents to Maine secretary of state despite judge’s order
Matthew Dunlap accuses the Justice Department of 'contempt for the rule of law' in its response regarding a judge's order on voter fraud commission papers.
BY COLIN WOODARD STAFF WRITER Posted Yesterday at 3:40 PM Updated January 6

President Trump’s decision last week to pull the plug on his troubled voter fraud commission was partly the result of Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap’s effort to force the body to behave in a transparent and bipartisan manner, a struggle that gained intensity Saturday, when Dunlap learned the administration would not be turning over working documents to him as a federal judge had ordered.

The president’s decision, announced Wednesday, also came less than two weeks after a federal judge ordered the commission to share working documents and scheduling information with Dunlap, who had sued the body in November after he and three other Democrats serving on the 11-member commission had been frozen out of its deliberations.

But in a surprise move revealed Saturday, the Trump administration is resisting turning over the documents.

Dunlap blasted the Justice Department in a written statement released Saturday afternoon, characterizing its response as a “rich blend of arrogance and contempt for the rule of law.” He said it was “unthinkable, unconscionable and un-American that the administration would engage in actions that demonstrate such a flagrant disregard for a court ruling and the rule of law” and said he was “more committed than ever” to securing the documents.

http://www.pressherald.com/2018/01/06/trump-administration-resists-turning-over-documents-to-dunlap/

[randr]

1. The lsos is moving his voteing conspiracy paranoia

into the DHS where he will attempt to convince his minions into canceling the upcoming elections due to some imagined national security threat.

[CrispyQ]

3. Joan Walsh was on MSNBC a few weeks ago & uttered these words on air: "If we have elections."

In reference to 2018. I was stunned to hear that on air. A few weeks later she was let go. I'm sure it was coincidental, but it was unusual timing & my husband & I both commented on it.

[CrispyQ]

4. Your post is spot on.

I believe he will do anything if he feels the GOP will lose control of Congress.

[Enoki33]

7. A friend commented that we will have elections, but only because

the Russians have fined tuned their hacking to make sure their puppets remain to do their bidding - protecting their prime grandiose jerk.

[FakeNoose]

10. They can't hack the paper ballots

That's why every state and every congressional district needs to switch to paper ballots this year.
It sure made a difference in both Virginia and Alabama!

The electronic voting machines have been hacked to favor the GOP in every state.

[Angry Dragon]

15. +4,000

[lsewpershad]

2. Someone

should be slapped with contempt charges... and sent tp jail for cooling pff period.... of say 6 months.

[RandomAccess]

5. This is important.

Trump has demonstrated his innate lawlessness in innumerable ways, but this one can't be allowed to stand.

Because exactly what happens if they continue to ignore the judge's orders????? Does someone go to jail??

[workinclasszero]

6. Some lawless tin pot dictator should be

impeached for it, that's for damn sure!

[duforsure]

8. This is grounds

For impeachment

[Ligyron]

9. Mueller, help!

[FakeNoose]

11. There's always room for more charges on the indictment

[Angry Dragon]

16. +4,000

[getagrip_already]

12. easy francis.....

They CAN'T cancel the 2018 elections because they are NOT run by the federal government. They are run by the states. The feds can't stop a constitutionally mandated election in all states.

No Dem governor would put up with it. Most republican governors would also not halt elections. Each state stands unto itself. A failure for one to vote doesn't impact those who do. Even a presidential election doesn't require votes be counted by each state. They have until a certain date to certify, after that, their votes don't count.

If a republican governor suspended a state election, it would mean they had no house of representive members that could be sworn in - they HAVE to be elected, and their terms end each session. With fewer republicans being sworn in, the house would decidedly swirv to dem control.

It would mostly impact the senate. If a dem were up for reelection with a R gov, the governor could simply appoint an interim senator until elections could be held. That might have an impact. But it would require a republican governor, a democratic senator that is up for reelection in 2018, and a shutdown of the election at the state level (which would be illegal in itself).

[FreepFryer]

14. Why are you dispelling the carefully cultivated hopeless fear?

Facts, context, thoughtfulness and knowledge - thank you.

Fear is the mind killer.

[world wide wally]

13. Sounds like contempt of court to me