God is far away and it’s possible that His internet was down.
More seriously, I’m pretty sure that the Trump name is down to avoid unnecessary legal entanglements but the tarp is still up on the orders of the Orange Toddler out of sheer spite. The controversy it arouses warms the inner parts of his publicity-seeking reptilian brain, and it’s a way to avoid acknowledging the reality of what actually happened.
I think another operative element here is the hope or belief that the name can eventually be restored after incessant appeals, possibly right up to the toadies on the Supreme Court.
Given Trump’s track record with court order compliance, I am pretty sure that Trump is up to some bullshit. I have zero confidence that his name was removed until I see it for myself.
That tarp is not going anywhere. They say that it’s there for work to be done on the building. But, come on. People working inside that enclosed space in D.C. in the summer? I’m actually surprised they are making any excuses since there is no way to make them take it down and they are shameless. Just admit it’s a “fuck you” to the public. MAGA would love it.
Genuine question, I’m not a lawyer so someone please feel free to fight my ignorance on this.
We still don’t have independent confirmation that the name has been removed due to that damn tarp that’s been up since the last week. It seems like there should be some sort of court-appointed Independent verification, apart from a regime toady, that can confirm the order was legally followed.
What good is a court order if the court itself can’t confirm that it’s order was followed?
I feel like I’m missing something obvious here. I don’t expect the actual judge themselves to go and look at the front of the building, but it seems like there should be an easy solution to this that no one is considering or addressing?
Did you notice that, in that article, it says that the fund was established unanimously? I wonder if that includes a vote by Rep. Joyce Beatty, who was muted during the “unanimous” vote to add his name to the building.
It might be that The Powers That Be are stalling just to see if the ruling is overturned (as so many others have been in the past) allowing the judge involved in the current ruling to say “Since my ruling was overturned anything I now do is moot. I wash my hands.”
When the appeal failed, the Department of Justice filed a certification that the court order would be obeyed. The crew draped the scaffold with the tarp. In its shadow, workers began the demolition. The only evidence that this was happening is a photograph taken by the AP through a gap at the side.
If you look at the photo, it shows a worker removing the “P”.
Her vote was not counted. The board decided that, as an ex-officio, she didn’t have voting rights. However, that’s not a thing the board can just decide. By law, unless it says otherwise in the bylaws, an ex-officio has the same voting rights as any other board member.
In fact, if you look at Count Three of her lawsuit, it’s about exactly that.
She points out that since the board was stacked with Trump loyalists, they didn’t even have to do that, they just want to be able to say it was a unanimous vote. She also mentions that the fact that this was done 24 hours after the vote means it was always going to happen, the “vote” was just a formality. Otherwise, for example, the lettering wouldn’t have already been made.
Right. But the article you linked is about the naming of the building.
My question is about the new endowment fund. The story on that also says that establishing the fund was a unanimous decision. But I have trouble believing that Beatty would have gone along with that vote, so I was wondering if they had counted her vote on that issue.
The center’s board of trustees — handpicked by Trump after he purged its membership last year — unanimously voted to create the fund, CBS News reported Sunday.
Beatty is not on the Board.
So, indeed, she wasnt there, since she shouldnt have been there.