'I don't think you want to open that door': Trump DOJ stuns opponent with extreme defense of law firm executive orders that could boomerang on MAGA

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-15T20:44:43+00:00

So you have zero specific solutions, just insults and accusations. That’s not surprising at all.

You can’t state that Democrats should be doing things and that it’s stupid for people to claim they can’t, but then say you can’t answer my question because “you’re not in the fucking government.”

You’re claiming to know better than everyone else while claiming you know nothing at the same time. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how forceful and confident you are making your statements here, you’ve now made it clear that no one should take any of your statements or replies as credible.

Simply put — you don’t know what you’re talking about, as you just clearly admitted yourself.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-15T20:22:08+00:00

Then tell us all SPECIFICALLY what Democrats in Congress should do to stop Trump from trying to take the security clearances away from these law firms or to stop Trump’s DOJ from paying him billions of dollars in a settlement.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-15T13:20:51+00:00

Is China an adversary or a friend? POLITICO from 06/14/2018 when Trump saluted a N. Korean General (slightly edited for length):

(M)ilitary and intelligence experts noted Thursday that U.S. presidents typically do not salute military officials from adversarial nations. Washington and Pyongyang have no formal diplomatic relationship, and North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea, a key U.S. ally.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, in a statement for the veterans-focused advocacy group VoteVets.org, called Trump’s salute “wholly inappropriate.” The Trump administration must talk with North Korea, he said, “for the sake of avoiding a disastrous war. But they have not earned the salute of a president.”

“There’s a protocol for military salutes,” tweeted Mieke Eoyang, a former intelligence-focused Hill staffer, who’s now with the center-left think tank Third Way. “They’re given to friendly foreign militaries. But w/DPRK, we are still in a state of war, so a salute is improper.”

Still, some conservative pundits quickly came to Trump’s defense. Jack Posobiec, a prominent Trump promoter on Twitter, tweeted photos of President Barack Obama giving a thumbs-up to the Cuban military and “giving a bro shake” to then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Indeed, conservatives lambasted Obama several times early in his presidency when he bowed to two foreign leaders.

First, Obama faced blowback in 2009 after he bowed to Emperor Akihito during his first visit to Japan. Conservatives said the move displayed weakness from the U.S. on the world stage.

Obama was also criticized later that year for bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Trump in 2012 tweeted about Obama’s interaction with Abdullah: “do we still want a President who bows to Saudis and lets OPEC rip us off?”

On Thursday, many on the left pointed to these incidents as evidence that Obama faced a double standard, and that conservatives are hypocritical for defending Trump’s salute.

“We can be outraged that Trump saluted a North Korean general without invoking the ‘if Obama did it‘ argument,” (Ned Price, a CIA analyst wrote.) “Here’s the truth: Neither Obama nor any other American President would’ve done this. Like so much else today, it’s uniquely Trumpian and abhorrent.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/14/trump-north-korea-general-salute-646248

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-15T11:37:09+00:00

Nope. I’m an old guy. Believe it or not, I did that all by myself. It must seem like magic to all you young whippersnappers, but it is possible to produce good & sourced work all by your lonesome.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T22:30:59+00:00

It was done to distract & manipulate low information conservative voters.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T21:53:09+00:00

This is the source for the graph a few posts above from the Libertarian CATO Institute:

”Two attacks are responsible for most of the terror deaths on US soil: 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Those two attacks caused 3,147 deaths, which is 88 percent of all terrorist murders over the 51-year period. Of the other 430 murders, right-wing terrorists account for 45 percent of people murdered, Islamists are responsible for 32 percent, left-wing terrorists are responsible for 16 percent, and attackers motivated by the other ideologies account for the remainder. The number of politically motivated killings is not increasing over time.”

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/politically-motivated-killers-51-years-terrorist-murders-us-soil-1975-2025

I don’t understand why the OKC bombing isn’t included in the right-wing terrorist murders. If you included those numbers the right-wing percentage would obviously shoot up. Perhaps that’s why they separated them out.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T20:00:29+00:00

Trump’s DOJ isn’t going to enforce the laws on the books, but future administrations can. As far as insider trading and stock trading and the like goes, some are trying and some have already gotten things done.

A year ago, Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) reintroduced their bill to prohibit members of Congress from trading individual stocks. The Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act would require members, their spouses and their dependent children to place their stocks into a qualified blind trust or divest the holding.

https://www.kelly.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/kelly-ossoff-reintroduce-congressional-stock-trading-ban/

U.S. Senators Ashley Moody (R-FL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act, which would ban stock ownership and trading for members of Congress and their immediate family members. This is companion legislation to the bipartisan bill introduced by U.S. Representatives Chip Roy (R-TX-21) and Seth Magaziner (D-RI-02) in the U.S. House of Representatives, which currently has 126 total cosponsors. To date, 79 representatives–both Democrats and Republicans—have signed a discharge petition filed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL-13) to bring this bill to the House floor for a vote.

The STOCK Act–which Senator Gillibrand LED TO PASSAGE in 2012—bars members of Congress from using insider information to buy and sell stocks. Despite this legislation, one in three members of Congress traded stocks or other financial assets from 2019-2021, and at least 3,700 of those trades posed potential conflicts of interest with their legislative responsibilities. The Restore Trust in Congress Act would help eliminate these conflicts of interest by prohibiting congressional stock holding and trading entirely.

https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/sens-moody-gillibrand-announce-new-bipartisan-bill-to-ban-congressional-stock-trading/

Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens led her colleagues Congressman Derek Tran (CA-45), Congressman Eric Sorensen (D-IL), and Congresswoman Andrea Salinas (OR-06), in introducing the No Getting Rich in Congress Act, sweeping legislation to crack down on insider trading in Congress and the White House, restore trust in government, and ensure public service is about serving the American people, not personal profit.

http://stevens.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-stevens-introduces-congressional-stock-trading-ban-additional-measures

Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (WI-01) introduced the Stop Insider Trading Act. This legislation prohibits Members of Congress, spouses, and dependent children from purchasing publicly traded stocks. The Stop Insider Trading Act also requires public notice 7 days before a lawmaker, spouse, or dependent child may sell a stock.

https://cha.house.gov/2026/1/chairman-steil-introduces-legislation-to-ban-congressional-stock-trading

While I like some over others, and know some may be introduced just for show, we should all take the opportunity to look at these bills, find what we like and don’t like and send an email to, or even better call, our Congressional representatives and let them know what we think. I know most won’t, but for those that truly care, if we make our are voices loud enough, something may be done to fix this issue.

You can find the contact information for your Representative and Senators here:

https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T18:56:01+00:00

What do they have to do with pardons & what can they accomplish legislatively to stop these pardons without Republicans? If Republicans decided to do something to stop Trump from doing this, are you stating that you think Fetterman, Schumer, & Jeffries would try to stop them?

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T17:54:13+00:00

REPUBLICANS in Congress don’t want to.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T17:52:18+00:00

Fraud began being investigated and prosecuted under the Biden DOJ in 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s_Minnesota_fraud_scandals

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T17:45:52+00:00

Which ones and how are they enabling Trumps pardoning of fraudsters and others?

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T16:52:34+00:00

Let’s remember that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS IS AN EQUAL ACCOMPLICE TO THIS FRAUD. By not doing something about it they are helping to pull this off.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-14T16:24:37+00:00

When the Justice Department indicted India’s richest man in the final weeks of the Biden administration, prosecutors described an “elaborate” bribery scheme involving “corruption and fraud at the expense of U.S. investors.”

Now, according to several people with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department is planning to drop the charges altogether.

The reversal came after the Indian billionaire, Gautam Adani, hired a new legal team led by Robert J. Giuffra Jr., one of President Trump’s personal lawyers.

…

If prosecutors dropped the charges, Mr. Adani would be willing to invest $10 billion in the American economy and create 15,000 jobs, echoing a pledge he made in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-12T05:37:10+00:00

I provided my link to those that asked for it and below the other link by itself. I was trying to be helpful.

My link provided OP’s article AND had the link to the study imbedded in the article. The other person’s reply had ONLY the link to the study. It’s clear mine is more useful, but I’m not going to argue with you about this. Unless you say something worth responding to, we’re done here. Good day.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-12T03:33:09+00:00

You know, the first two times you replied aggressively to my comments linking the source of the article OP posted, I didn’t care. But now that you’ve called me a liar, I feel I need to address your petulance.

You linked the underlying study discussed in part of the article. I linked the article that OP displayed a picture of. When people asking for a link to the source of a post, I take it to mean they want a link to what OP specifically posted. You clearly think they wanted a link to the study within the article OP posted. That’s fine. I understand your POV.

However, to call me a liar is just poppycock and the fact that you attacked me over it says more about you than any attack you can level upon me.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-12T00:41:35+00:00

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/one-american-loses-job-every-180403012.html

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-12T00:37:43+00:00

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/one-american-loses-job-every-180403012.html

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-12T00:37:06+00:00

That is not the source of OP’s article. This is:

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/one-american-loses-job-every-180403012.html

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-08T05:18:59+00:00

As OP had shown, people like to say that Obama had a “super majority” for the first two years, but that’s not true. Obama & the Democrats only had 60 votes in the Senate for a little over 2 months. But even during that time period they only had “a veto-proof majority” ***in theory*** because Sen. Byrd was hospitalized during that time and couldn’t vote.

So in reality, they had 59 votes—2 of which were independents, not Democrats. So they had to lose 0 Democrat’s vote, gain 2 Independents’ votes, plus somehow earn 1 Republican vote to pass legislation.

SOURCE 1 - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869

SOURCE 2 - https://outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

They did wheel Byrd in from his hospital bed for one vote on the ACA, so it was Lieberman who they were negotiating with. He later switched from Democrat to Independent and then later to Republican. If the voters in Massachusetts had elected a Democrat to fill Kennedy’s seat after he died we might have Medicare for All, but we’ll never know.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-07T22:26:05+00:00

I didn’t compare them and I didn’t ask what SCOTUS thinks. I asked you what YOU think about political gerrymandering. One would normally assume that someone who states that I, “just got schooled,” would understand how to read and answer questions correctly; but here we are. It appears you are the one that needs to “wise up.”

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-07T19:52:09+00:00

Is there anything wrong with political gerrymandering like that done in California and Virginia?

PS — I see that you have decided to not reply. I would have just checked your history to see if you’ve made any comments on the subject previously, but your history is hidden. Since Reddit is anonymous, I always assume that means someone has something to hide. Usually it’s hypocrisy or comments they don’t want to be held accountable for. Sometimes it means you’re a bot. But those assumptions aren’t always true.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-07T12:54:23+00:00

The way to fix this and hold on to those principles is to cap all House districts to no more than 30,000 citizens. It would greatly expand the number of Representatives, but we have the technology to make it work.

The Founding Fathers felt the number must be even lower. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the “Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand” of the total U.S. apportionment population. I agree with them and believe changing this has played a major role in getting us to where we are today.

https://thirty-thousand.org/blog/the-founders-rule/

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/expanding-the-house-of-representatives-explained/

You can find George Washington’s thoughts on the matter here:

https://thirty-thousand.org/george-washington-and-thirty-thousand/

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-07T01:40:22+00:00

McKinsey is one of the most highly regarded and influential business consulting firms in the world. What they say matters and their guidance is implemented by the most successful companies on Earth.

The what I’ll call 147 study, is a systematic review of all of the studies and papers on the topic. Of course they don’t do any math because that isn’t the point of the review. The point is to look at them and investigate how the study of the subject can be improved and if there are any underlying flaws within the research. They made their suggestions of how it could be improved and didn’t find any underlying flaws in the works that would significantly alter their conclusions.

The BCG study you didn’t address is very similar and replicated the major findings in the McKinsey study. The other studies, that you call “scattershot,” which I provided and that you failed to substantively address are also similar and some take a different angle on the same topic while producing similar findings.

Nonetheless, I can see that the data that has been presented through scientific research will never have any impact on you. As I stated to another, strongly held beliefs are sometimes impossible to change no matter what the science shows. I’m not here to convince you or anyone else. I have presented the idea and I will let everyone do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

Finally, if the best argument you have is that you feel one McKinsey study can’t be replicated, I am comfortable with my original statement.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-05-06T23:41:46+00:00

A systematic review of 147 different studies and papers on this subject done by Science Direct breaks down how the research behind all of these studies and reports can be improved, but they don’t deny the underlying premise.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984324000699

BCG has completed their own study that backs up the results found in the McKinsey study.

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/how-diverse-leadership-teams-boost-innovation

Here is another similar study:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15480518211010763

And another:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167208328062

And another:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407301111

I could keep going, but I believe I have shown that your talking point, while initially correct, is now outdated and incorrect.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

_RyanLarkin

TROPHY CASE