Log in

I forgot my password

Our latest tweets
Free Webmaster ToolsSubmit Express

The Serious Side - part 5

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Wed Jan 09 2019, 01:29

He is going to try and scare America, with lies and misinformation. Sadly, there will be those who believe him.

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Wed Jan 09 2019, 01:48

I don't see how he can claim to want to keep Americans safe at the same time as he puts almost 1,000,000 of us in financial jeopardy. It's much, much more likely that people will have their lives totally disrupted by the government shutdown than that they'll be  victims of an attack by an "illegal alien". Anyone who still buys his lies is an idiot.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if nobody watched him tonight? Very Happy  I know I won't!
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Wed Jan 09 2019, 02:44

Brilliant idea Lizzy.

Also think it has to be good that the Democrats got air time too.

NB According to the NYT, the man has never been vetted!

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Wed Jan 09 2019, 15:01

PAN - In a way that's what Mueller is doing. Sadly, it's too little too late. It should have been done before he got elected - along with a psychiatric evaluation.

The good news out of all this mess is that most of us still believe in the Constitution and the law - otherwise someone would have already blown him away. Of course there is still time for that to happen.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Wed Jan 09 2019, 15:37

I think the secret service is working over time to keep him a live.

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Wed Jan 09 2019, 16:34

And of course they're still getting paid.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Wed Jan 09 2019, 19:08

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6574003/Trump-turns-heat-Pelosi-says-cutting-funds-CA-wildfires.html

[size=34]Trump turns up the heat on Pelosi saying he has ordered FEMA to cut off funds for California wildfire management, claiming her home state has wasted billions[/size]


  • The president brought up California wildfires on the 19th day of a government shutdown 

  • He said the state's forest fires wouldn't have gone on with 'proper' management

  • Says unless state gets its act together, he has ordered FEMA to send 'no money'

  • Called it a 'disgraceful situation'

  • State's top firefighter says it leads nation in clearing dead trees and brush

  • New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from California, and blasted Trump Tuesday night for his 'obsession' with border wall 


By GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 12:03 EST, 9 January 2019 | UPDATED: 12:42 EST, 9 January 2019

     


President Donald Trump has inserted another hot issue into his clash with congressional leaders over the government shutdown, threatening to withhold funds for responding to California wildfires and blasting the state for mismanagement.
The threat, issued on twitter, was immediately taken as a shot at new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who on Tuesday night countered Trump's prime time speech on immigration by mocking his 'obsession' with a border wall.  
'Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forest fires that, with proper Forest Management, would never happen,' the president tweeted Wednesday morning, after initially misspelling it 'Forrest' in an earlier tweet.


+5


'Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money,' Trump threatened California over its handling of federal funds to counter wildfires
'Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!' Trump added.

The state's former top firefighter doesn't agree. According to the AP, he said last month his state leads the nation in clearing away brush, dead trees, and other incendiary materials that feed forest fires.
State officials have pointed to a variety of factors including some of the hottest years on record amid global warming trends.   
The House Republican minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy also is from California. Trump owns a golf club in California's Palos Verdes Peninsula.


+5


U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) arrives for a House Democratic party caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. January 9, 2019. Trump is threatening to cut off funds for California wildfires


+5


In this file photo taken on November 10, 2018 Flames from the Camp fire burn near a home atop a ridge near Big Bend, California. President Donald Trump on January 9, 2019 said he is cutting emergency federal aid sent to help California after devastating wildfires unless the Democratic-led state gets its 'act together.'


+5


The president threatened to cut off disaster funds for California as it recovers from the Camp Fire due to fire management he called 'disgraceful'


+5


President Trump sent out a corrected Tweet after earlier sounding off about 'Forrest fires' and threatening to cut off California funds
The president's tweet follows a fire season where the California town of Paradise was virtually wiped off the map, and homeowners and residents are lookgin to rebuild.
Another prominent Californian, Sen. Kamala Harris, took on Trump. 'Californians endured the deadliest wildfire in our state's history last year. We should work together to mitigate these fires by combating climate change, not play politics by threatening to withhold money from survivors of a deadly natural disaster,' she Tweeted.
The president's tweet came after the Camp Fire ravaged parts of the state in November and resulted in 85 deaths – becoming the costliest and deadliest in history for a state that regularly deals with forest fires.
Trump also blamed poor forest management even while the fire was raging, and cited the superior management practiced in Finland, though the country's president denied a conversation with Trump happened as the president described it.
Trump said the Finns do 'a lot of time on raking and cleaning.' After Trump's claim, Finland's President Sauli Niinisto said he did speak to Trump in Paris, but had no recollection of telling him about Finnish raking practices.
The country does practice controlled burns, but it also has many lakes and roads – as well as a climate considerably colder than that of southern California. 

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Wed Jan 09 2019, 19:58

There are no words to describe how despicable this man is. He doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Fri Jan 11 2019, 23:43

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6582765/Let-Trump-CORRECT-Mueller-report-sees-Rudy-demands.html

[size=34]Let Trump CORRECT the Mueller report before anyone else sees it, Rudy demands, saying it is 'fairness' to be shown it before it goes to Congress[/size]


  • Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is demanding his client get to see the final report

  • Mueller is required to turn over a final report to the attorney general

  • Democrats are concerned it might get buried, and could file subpoena for it

  • Trump lawyer Giuliani wants to see it first 'as a matter of fairness' 

  • Also said there was 'nothing criminal' about Paul Manafort sharing campaign polling with alleged Russian 'spy' 


By GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 15:26 EST, 11 January 2019 | UPDATED: 17:02 EST, 11 January 2019

     



In the latest wrinkle over the looming Mueller report that has Washington on edge, President Trump's team is demanding an advance look at the document so that they may 'correct' the findings.
The regulations governing a special counsel state at the at the conclusion of the probe, the special counsel deliver a confidential report to the attorney general. The document could eventually become public, especially if Congress forces the issues.
Democrats in Congress are already raising a fuss, fearful that President Trump's attorney general or acting attorney general may attempt to sit on the information.
Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani stated in a new interview that his team will push to get a look at it before it is released or ends up in the public domain.


+5


Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani says President Trump's team deserves the right to 'correct' any errors in the Mueller report
'As a matter of fairness, they should show it to you — so we can correct it if they’re wrong,” the former New York City mayor told The Hill newspaper. 

'They’re not God, after all. They could be wrong,' he added. 
 There have been some signals that Mueller may be nearing the end of his probe. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him, announced that he will be stepping down soon, later clarifying he would stay until Mueller finished his work. 
Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler has said once the report is produced, he will request it and subpoena it to force its release if necessary. It is possible this would set off a battle over any executive privilege claims.






+5


Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, right, listens as President Donald Trump speaks to the media before signing anti-human trafficking legislation, Wednesday Jan. 9, 2019. The Trump-nominated acting AG has assumed partial oversight of the Mueller probe


+5


Special Counsel Robert Mueller turns over a final report to the attorney general when his probe is finished


+5


Attorney General nominee William Barr on his own initiative submitted a brief critical of the Mueller probe


+5


Longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is certain to get questioned during Capitol Hill testimony about his role in hush payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump
The White House office of legal counsel has been staffing up in advance of any legal tussles. 
Giuliani also expressed no worry that longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen – who he has termed a liar, and who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about a Trump Moscow tower project as well as campaign violations related to hush payments to women – will be testifying publicly before Democratic-run committees.
“Big deal!” Giuliani said.
 He also commented on this week's bombshell revelations that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort passed on campaign poll information to Konstantin Kilimnik, who Mueller's team has linked to a Russian intelligence agency.
'Should he have done it? No. But there’s nothing criminal about it,' Giuliani said.

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Sat Jan 12 2019, 15:23

When did it become legal policy for the accused to "correct" the prosecutor's evidence before it was made public in court? Who in hell do these people think they are? We got rid of kings in a revolution 200 years ago and we got rid of Hitler in WWII. Is that what it will take to get rid of this pervert?!
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Sat Jan 12 2019, 16:56

Guiliani has lost his damn mind. This is ridiculous he is an attorney and should know better.

Trump thinks he is Putin and can do whatever he likes.

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Mon Jan 14 2019, 22:59

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6591223/Senior-Trump-official-tells-president-anonymous-op-ed-shutter-shutdown-agencies-forever.html



[size=34]Senior Trump official pens anonymous essay saying 'wasteful government agencies' are BETTER OFF without furloughed workers who are lazy and unaccountable – and should never be allowed back[/size]


  • Person said non-essential agencies that are closed, and their personnel, that are not being paid through the partial federal shutdown should be cut loose

  • 'The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good' 

  • Philosophical position on big government is shared by most conservatives in Trump's political party - but it hasn't led to a drastically smaller federal payroll

  • Writer claimed that government employees seeking to implement the president's agenda have their time wasted by bureaucracy

  • They also spend their time fending off threats from career officials determined to derail the administration's political agenda


By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 14:53 EST, 14 January 2019 | UPDATED: 15:32 EST, 14 January 2019

 
A senior Trump administration official urged the president Monday in an anonymous op-ed to leave shuttered government agencies closed forever.
The person said that non-essential agencies that are closed, and their personnel, that are not being paid through the partial federal shutdown should be cut loose.
Pushing a philosophical position on big government that is shared by most conservatives in Trump's political party, the unknown author said: 'The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.'


+2


A senior Trump administration official urged the president Monday in an anonymous op-ed to leave shuttered government agencies closed forever

Video playing bottom right...
Click here to expand to full page







The op-ed writer known only to the outlet that published the piece, The Daily Caller,was said to be a high-ranking official in the Republican president's government working without a paycheck.
In the essay, the official estimated that just 15 percent other government employees are 'are exceptional patriots serving their country' who deserve competitive salaries.
'But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t,' the person wrote. 'Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position, some do this in the same position for more than a decade.'
The Trump administration official claimed that most government workers in question 'do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value' and are weighed down by layers of unnecessary bureaucracy.
'That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands; administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves,' the person wrote. 
For government employees seeking to implement the president's policy priorities, the person claimed their time is often wasted preventing so-called deep state actors from derailing the administration's political agenda.
'Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda,' the person claimed. 'This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them.'



The shutdown relieved the official of those lazy colleagues the person said are working against the president or abusing the system. Because they're deemed non-essential, they have been furloughed until further notice.       
'We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them,' the person wrote.
Noting that the plan to close those agencies forevermore is decried by some, who say that it's 'morally wrong' to strip workers' of guaranteed paychecks, the op-ed writer compared their plight to that of a troubled pet owner mulling end of life care.
'It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist,' the person wrote.   
Roughly one-quarter of the federal workforce have had their pay withheld since December 21 in the longest-ever government shutdown as the White House tangles with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over how to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.
The president hasn't taken his foot off the gas pedal, bashing Democrats for leaving Washington while government employees wait to find out when their paychecks will return. 
'I’ve been here all weekend,' he groused on Monday. 'A lot of Democrats are in Puerto Rico, celebrating something, I don’t know. Maybe they’re celebrating the shutdown.'
He didn't express any confidence that the shutdown's days are numbered, although he described Republicans as 'rock solid' and claimed of Democrats that 'many of them are calling and many of them are breaking.
'I don't know if we're close on a deal,' Trump said. 'This should be the easiest deal that I've ever seen. We're talking about border security. Who could be against it?' 
The senior official writing in The DC urged him to stay the course and advised him to ask more of lawmakers than he had been.
'The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders,' the person contended.


+2


President Donald Trump has rejected the idea of reopening the government for three weeks while negotiations continue over funding for his border wall on Monday morning

RELATED ARTICLES




  • Previous


  • 1


  • Next




  • Trump goes after 'Nancy and Cryin' Chuck' again on Day 24 of...Republican leaders slam Democrats for 'partying on the...












The official said the shutdown must reap big benefits for Trump or it will not be considered a victory for him or the Republican Party.
'A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president,' the person advised.
Only the essential federal workers who are not receiving paychecks should get their money until then, the anonymous official argued.
'Ideally continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security,' the person said. 'Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.' 
With Pelosi and Schumer standing in his way, a remaining option is for the president to declare a national emergency and use existing Defense Department funds to build his border wall. But Trump has resisted the temptation, and appeared no closer on Monday to taking that tempting off-ramp from the crisis.
'I'm not looking to call a national emergency. This is so simple, you shouldn't have to,' he said. 'Now, I have the absolute legal right to call it, but I'm not looking to do that.
Trump claimed that Democrats 'are stopping us, and they're stopping a lot of great people from getting paid,' many of whom he's claimed are members of their political party. 
The anonymous official said that the crisis on the border is a federal emergency and Trump should follow-through on a related threat to strip nations of foreign aid that are providing the greatest number of illegal immigrants. 
Even more, he should permanently close United States' government agencies, too, that do not directly protect America's national security, the person said.
'The president’s instincts are right, Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen,' the official wrote. 'Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.'

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Mon Jan 14 2019, 23:31

They should start at the top! The biggest waste of money, the least capable, least concerned about doing his job properly to benefit the American people, the greediest, most unscrupulous .... Trump goes first, followed by anyone related to him by blood, followed by anyone working to push his "agenda" forward. He has done more damage to this country than any of our enemies could ever have hoped to do.

I wonder how many of those "furloughed workers voted for him. I wonder how many of them will vote for him again.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Tue Jan 15 2019, 00:18

I would take a bet that the Republican 'White House' advisor is Stephen Miller, who doesn't seem to be able to hold an interview on TV without screaming and shouting at the presenter - hence not many appearances. But I think it's common knowledge that he writes many of Trump's anti-immigration speeches.

(I'm dying for some journalist to challenge Trump on his 'immigrants committing murder' and ask him if he knows the figures for Americans murdering Americans on a day-day basis).

Of course as somebody who inherited Daddy's money he would have no idea - he doesn't seem to realise that security is now threatened at places like airports etc. He doesn't care as long he gets his own way. Nancy Pelosi is right.

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Tue Jan 15 2019, 15:32

We can only hope that the people who still support him are beginning to realize that his policies are hurting them as much, if not more, than the people they hate. The coal industry is practically dead, farmers are struggling to stay alive and our infrastructure is falling apart. The "middle class" is practically extinct and many blue-collar workers, civil service and military personnel live paycheck to paycheck. None of this bothers drumpf because none of it affects him. He still has his golf games and his golden toilet.

I wonder how much longer it will take drumpf's supporters to realize that having permission to spread hate isn't worth losing everything else.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Tue Jan 15 2019, 16:45

Lizzy, I saw an article with a picture and a farmer in Iowa had plowed into his field build the wall.

The soldier who was trying go fund the wall raised 20 million in donations.  It was returned to the donors

since he didn't reach 5 billion the the allotted time.

I think some see he doesn't care but I think sadly some will never get it.

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Tue Jan 15 2019, 18:02

I really haven't been following the GoFundMe thing except that I saw the article that said they were returning the money - but I also saw something about the guy who started it putting the money into an escrow account or something and that maybe the thing is a scam. I don't know and honestly don't care. I do know there are a lot better ways to spend your money.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Tue Jan 15 2019, 18:11

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6592707/Trumps-AG-pick-steer-Dem-GOP-queries-hearing.html

[size=34]Trump's pick to run the Justice Department says it would be a 'breach' if the president tries to intervene in a case involving his family or a business associate - and says Mueller would NOT take part in a 'witch hunt'[/size]


  • William Barr was attorney general for George H.W. Bush and Trump re-nominated him

  • Confirmation hearing began Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee

  • Democrats grilled Barr repeatedly on his views about Special Counsel Robert Mueller 

  • Vouches for Robert Mueller and salutes service of Comey 

  • Says it would be a breach if president intervenes in a case to 'protect himself' 

  • Said he won't be 'bullied' into doing anything he thinks is wrong 

  • Said preceding AG Jeff Sessions was 'probably right' to recuse from Russia probe

  • Says 'On my watch, Bob will be allowed to finish his work' 

  • As attorney general, Barr could fire Mueller and bury his report on Russia

  • Barr and Mueller are longtime friends whose wives share a Bible study

  • 'I feel like I'm in a position in life where I can do the right thing and not really care about the consequences,' he said 


By GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 00:13 EST, 15 January 2019 | UPDATED: 12:06 EST, 15 January 2019

     


President Donald Trump's attorney general nominee William Barr says the president would violate his oath of office if he ordered the Justice Department to take an action in which he had a 'stake.'
Barr made the statement as part of a hypothetical example during his first day of high-stakes testimony before the Senate Judiciary, asked about his views on executive power and whether the president could intervene in political cases.  
He made the comments as on a day when he backed up his friend special counsel Robert Mueller, and said longtime Trump foil former Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions was probably right to recuse himself from the Russia probe.
'I don't believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt,' Barr said under questioning.

On the president's powers, he said: 'The other category of cases –and let's pick an easy bad example – would be if a member of the president's family or a business associate or something was under investigation and he tries to intervene.'
'He's the chief law enforcement officer, and you could say well he has the power, but that would be a breach of his obligation under the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws,' Barr said.
Scroll down for video 


+6



William Barr's confirmation hearing to return to the helm of the Justice Department featured tough grilling from Democrats about his views on the Robert Mueller probe
'So in my opinion, if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in to protect himself – that should first be looked at as a breach of his constitutional duties. Whether it also violates a statute depending on what statute comes into play and what all the facts are,' he said. 
Such pronouncement would ordinarily be boilerplate, but takes on extra significance while a probe President Trump has labeled a 'witch hunt' continues to examine Trump associates and family members who had contacts with Russians during the campaign.
Barr spoke as Senate Democrats pressed him on his views of the Mueller probe – including its investigation of any obstruction of justice by Trump, something Barr has criticized in writing.
Trump fired FBI Director James Comey early in his term, and according to Comey asked if he could relieve pressure on his former national security advisor Mike Flynn.  


Barr was pressed on his expansive view of executive power at the top of the hearing. He called the president the nation's chief law enforcement officer – but stated it wouldn't accurately reflect his views to say the president could order a probe that would then be carried out of anything he wants.
'Let's say the president's concerned about Chinese stealing trade secrets: I want you to go after this company that may be stealing trade secrets,' he explained.
'That's perfectly appropriate for him to do – to communicate that. But, whether it's bonafide or not, the Department of Justice's obligation and the Attorney General's obligation is not to take any action unless we reach … their own independent conclusion that it is justified under the law. Regardless of the instruction,' Barr continued.


+6


PREPARED: Attorney General nominee William Barr, center, and his wife Christine, right, smile before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019


+6


Barr was pressed repeatedly on whether he would allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller to repeat his work


+6


Sen. Dianne Feinstein questioned Barr on his written argument that the president's law enforcement powers  extend to 'all matters including those in which he has a personal stake'
'Everyone is saying I'm siccing – it's okay for the president to direct things,' he said. 'All I said was, It's not per se improper for the president to call on the Department for doing something, especially if he has no personal or political interest in it,' he added.
Senate Democrats opened the the Barr hearing to be attorney general by pressing him on his memo going after special counsel Robert Mueller's probe and asked if he'll have the 'strength' to push back at President Trump.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, said in her opening statement she had read the memo that Barr sent unsolicited to the White House, and would press him on his far-reaching view of executive powers.   
'I believe it's important that the next attorney general be able to strongly resist pressure, whether from the administration or Congress, to conduct investigations for political purposes,' the California Democrat said.
'He must have the integrity, the strength and the fortitude to tell the president no - regardless of the consequences,' Feinstein said in her remarks. 
She said she would question Barr on his written argument that the president's law enforcement powers 'extend to all matters, including those in which he has a personal stake, and that the Constitution places no limits on the president's authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct' – and brought up Trump's own vows to jail political opponent Hillary Clinton.   
'Let me just say that, some of your past statements on the role of attorney general and presidential power are concerning,' she said.
Barr also assured lawmakers that he has the independence needed to carry out the job. Some questioners, including Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, brought up Trump's constant attacks on former attorney general Jeff Sessions and others. 
Durbin also brought up the stunning resignation of Defense Sec. James Mattis.
Barr said he was too old to succumb to pressure. 
'It might give me pause if I were 45 or 50 y old but it doesn't give me pause right now,' he explained.
'I had a very good life. I have a very good life. I love it. But I also want to help in this circumstance. And I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong, by anybody - whether it be the editorial boards or Congress or the president. I'm going to do what I think is right,' Barr said.
In his own opening remarks, Barr acknowledged the government shutdown and expressed solidarity with federal workers in the Justice Department who 'continue to perform their critical jobs.'
Feinstein also asked a question at the behest of House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler, who has said he would subpoena the final Mueller report if necessary.
Barr maintained a large caveat: 'I am going to make as much information available as I can, consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations,' he said. 
Right away, Barr provided an assurance he won't allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe to be shut down.
'On my watch, Bob will be allowed to finish his work,' referring to his friend Mueller by his first name.
He said Mueller wouldn't be terminated except for good cause, that he wouldn't hold up his resources.  
And in another tip to opponents, he said the Justice Department should be a place 'where the rule of law, not politics, holds sway.'





'I will serve in the same independence I did in 1991,' he said, opening his remarks with quips about family members he brought along. 
'I feel like I'm in a position in life where I can do the right thing and not really care about the consequences,' he said under questioning by Sen. John Coryn of Texas. 
Barr sprinkled his remarks with policy and rhetorical acknowledgements of the priorities of minority Democrats, even though Republicans in the Senate can confirm him without Democratic votes.
Barr shared his view on Comey's decision to announce why the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton after investigating her emails during the 2016 campaign.
'I thought that to the extent that he actually announced a decision, was wrong, and the other thing is, if you're not going to indict someone, then you don't stand up there and unload negative information about the person,' he said 
In introductory remarks, Barr mentioned as priorities the right to vote, the integrity of elections, and foreign interference in elections.
Barr introduced about 10 family members who are all government prosecutors or lawyers.
New Judiciary Chairman 'Lindsey Graham told the little boy he should be a doctor so someone in the family makes some real money. Barr's financial disclosures revealed he has amassed about $37 million in assets.
President Donald Trump's attorney general nominee will have to navigate his confirmation hearing skillfully, emphasizing his support for Trump's policies while assuring Democrats he will act independently and won't interfere with the special counsel's Russia investigation.
Barr will face questions Tuesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee about his relationship with Trump and his views on executive powers.
Barr plans to tell legislators that Trump never sought any promises, assurances or commitments – and that he didn't offer Trump any – before he was nominated for the post.
Trump has repeatedly complained that his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was insufficiently loyal because he recused himself from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into potential ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. Trump ultimately forced Sessions from office.


+6



President Donald Trump picked Barr to replace Jeff Sessions, the attorney general he fired in November 
Barr, 68, is expected to be confirmed, unless there is a major surprise during the hearing. It would be his second stint as attorney general, a position he held from 1991 to 1993 during the George H.W. Bush administration.
The hearing will be the first time a high-profile nominee will come before the committee since it considered the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual misconduct. The panel has a new chairman, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Graham said last week after meeting with Barr that the nominee has confidence in Mueller and will let him complete his Russia investigation.
Barr has a 'high opinion' of Mueller, Graham told reporters. 'He had absolutely no indication he was going to tell Bob Mueller what to do or how to do it.'  
Barr and Mueller worked together when Barr was Bush's attorney general between 1991 and 1993 and Mueller oversaw the department's criminal division. The two men are 'best friends,' Graham said, and have known each other for 20 years. 
Their wives attend Bible study together, and Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr's daughters.


On Monday, the Justice Department moved to pre-empt the most significant questions that Barr is likely to face by releasing his prepared remarks. Barr plans to tell the senators that it is 'vitally important' that Mueller be allowed to complete his investigation and that he believes Congress and the public should learn the results.
'I believe it is in the best interest of everyone – the president, Congress, and, most importantly, the American people – that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work,' Barr says.
Barr describes Mueller, a former Justice Department colleague, as a friend he has known personally and professionally for 30 years. Mueller headed the department's criminal division when Barr served as attorney general.
The special counsel is required to confidentially report his findings to the Justice Department. In his prepared remarks, Barr stops short of directly pledging to release Mueller's report, but he expresses general support for disclosing the findings, whatever they may be.
Democrats had raised concerns about Barr's prior comments about the Russia investigation, including an unsolicited memo he sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year criticizing the inquiry into whether the president had obstructed justice.


+6


Barr, pictured with Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, released prepared remarks in advance of Tuesday's hearing in an attempt to pre-empt some of Democrats' questions




Barr also sent the memo to White House lawyers and discussed it with Trump's personal attorneys and a lawyer who represents Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, he said in a letter to Graham. 
Copies were sent by Barr to White House lawyer Emmet Flood, Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Pat Cipollone, who is now White House counsel. Barr said he discussed the contents of the memo with Trump's attorneys, Jay Sekulow and Jane and Martin Raskin.
The development is likely to raise even more questions at the hearing about Barr's contact with those close to Trump ahead of his nomination. He has insisted that the memo was not to influence public opinion about Mueller's investigation.
Barr has previously said the president's firing of FBI Director James Comey was appropriate and that the Mueller prosecution team, criticized by Trump for including prosecutors who have contributed to Democrats, should have had more 'balance.'
Barr's role leading the Russia investigation may be especially important since Rosenstein, who has overseen the day-to-day work of Mueller's team, expects to leave the Justice Department soon after Barr is confirmed. It is not clear how much of the investigation will be left by then.
Barr would replace acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who declined to recuse himself from the investigation - despite the advice of a Justice Department ethics official and calls from Democrats who cited Whitaker's past critical comments on the probe.
ADVERTISEMENT

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Wed Jan 16 2019, 16:56

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6598161/Putin-says-Russia-no-arms-race-forced-so.html




[size=34]Putin says Russia 'has no interest' in an arms race with the US and is being forced to do so against its will[/size]




  • The Russian President criticised 'unilateral' moves undertaken by the U.S 

  • But Trump says Russia is 'violating' a Reagan-era treaty between the two powers

  • The INF treaty limits Russia and America's missile deployment in Europe 

  • Putin said he hopes to revive treaty but won't 'turn a blind eye' to security threats



By MIRANDA ALDERSLEY FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 06:37 EST, 16 January 2019 | UPDATED: 10:23 EST, 16 January 2019


     





Russia is being forced into an arms race it has 'no interest' in by the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.
Putin said Russia was only taking 'countermeasures' against what he said were unilaterally actions by the U.S and other Western powers.
'Naturally, we are not going to turn a blind eye to the deployment of American missiles, which present a direct threat to our security,' he told Serbian media ahead of his visit to the country.


+


'We will have to take effective countermeasures.' 
'However, Russia, as a responsible and sensible country, has no interest in a new arms race,' the Russian president added.   
Asked about Washington's intended withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans the US and Russia from stationing short- and intermediate-range land-based missiles in Europe, Putin said he was 'open to further dialogue'.


Putin told Serbian media he has 'no interest' in an arms race with the United States
U.S President Donald Trump is threatening to pull out of the 1987 treaty over what he says are Russian violations.
'I don't know why President [Barack] Obama didn't negotiate or pull out,' the president said in October. 'They've been violating it for many years.'
Last month the Trump administration announced that it would give Russia 60 days to comply with terms of the accord or the US would withdraw — which could potentially kick start an arms race. 
Putin criticised what he called the 'continued unilateral actions, including military ones', undertaken by the United States.  


Share
'It is obvious that such a course will have the gravest consequences,' he added, blaming the US and other Western countries for creating an 'atmosphere of confrontation and mistrust.'
Russia's Foreign Ministry will hold a briefing on the treaty's fate this Friday, The Moscow Times reported.     
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said today that Moscow was ready to work to save the INF treaty and hopes Washington will take a responsible approach to arms control.


+2


The Trump administration has said that it wants to withdraw from the landmark Reagan-era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia 

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Wed Jan 16 2019, 21:04

...........well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Probably easier and cheaper to invade, poison, assassinate,  corrupt the citizens, spread Fake News via Facebook, alter election results, and form corrupt banks and businesses in other countries.......he already owns shares in most Russian companies....

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by carolhathaway on Wed Jan 16 2019, 21:30

Anybody who wants to talk about the Brexit chaos?
carolhathaway
carolhathaway
Mastering the tao of Clooney

Posts : 2604
Join date : 2015-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Wed Jan 16 2019, 22:05

PAN - What are the Brexit options now? It sounds pretty chaotic.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Wed Jan 16 2019, 22:22

Could do, Carol.

A couple of observations which are quite important:

I think most people who voted out (and I know very many) did it for really good reasons - eg the fishermen voted to get their waters back, the Welsh who don't have vast industries but whose ex politicians did extremely well financially in Brussels were not happy about remain - and a lot of people were concerned by the possibility of 60 million Turks joining the EU.

I don't subscribe to the Fake News theory - although I do know that some Remainers set up 'discussion groups' on Facebook to influence the young vote. Some of those were a very left wing element with Marxist tendencies

 

t
I knew quite a lot about this stuff - and it still amazes me that such a huge body of legislation has been created in such a relatively short space of time (40-odd years)

The other thing worth noting is that Theresa May is 6% ahead in the polls in general - and that the opposition does not have an alternative plan!


Last edited by party animal - not! on Wed Jan 16 2019, 22:51; edited 2 times in total

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Wed Jan 16 2019, 22:43

Lizzy, let's put it this way. I suspect that this is a game of gamesmanship. To be honest, I'm not sure how Mrs May is still standing - all the leading politicians (men!) who thought this was a good idea have left the process.

It could be down to personality but she is very experienced and was Home Secretary for
years. So she is very used to bureaucracy and 'suits', but I find the bureaucrats of Europe  staggering - they obviously don't want the UK to leave. They need our money! Of the 30-odd countries who are members now, only the UK and Germany have consistently paid their contributions regularly and on time! Very many have deferred payment - some for years. And within the EU money is wasted on all sorts of things - including for some absurd reason having to move the entire Parliament for one session every month I think to Strasbourg!!

One more thing: it would be madness to have another referendum in my opinion. What next - a referendum about the number of planes the RAF can have? Or the number of postboxes on the street?

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by carolhathaway on Thu Jan 17 2019, 07:33

PAN,
it just looks as if nobody had any idea about what to do. The parliament declined the deal their own government negotiated with the EU - which is their right. So what's next? A hard Brexit? New negotiations with the EU? Asking the EU to extend this date? The Brexit will start in just 71 days, and since the parliament seems to be discordant in between, even within their own parties, nobody knows what'll happen after March 29th. I'm organizing a trip to our British twin town in August at the moment and have no clue about certain issues: Will everybody need a passport, or will our ID cards do as well? Do we need visas? Does our hwalth insurance still work in the UK, or will everybody need an international health insurance? Will roaming still be available, or is phoning by mobile phone as expensive as it used to be before? How much time will we need in Calais and Dover before entering the ferries? Lots and lots of questions, and nobody seems to be able to answer any of them. Of course I know there's still four months inbetween March 29th and our visit, and time will tell - I'd be much more worried if we went in April...

I know that there are good reasons to leave the EU - and there are good reasons to remain. And I accept every good reason to have voted for 'leave'. But I've read many articles and comments that people voted 'leave' because they simply wanted to get one over on Cameron, were angry about their alien neighbour, simply wanted to say 'f* off'.
Those I've talked to said that they voted to remain. But I do know that the Oxfordshire area is a quite wealthy area with hardly anyunemployment rate etc. In September 2017, my family hosted a young student from this area who studies French, German and some 'European Economic' subject. She said that the Brexit wipes out her plans for the future. She voted to remain and said that many youngsters she knows, didn't vote because it was declared as non-binding. So they saw no need to join.

By the way:
You do know that Steve Bannon worked really hard to make the Brexit happen? That Cambridge Analytica did so as well? With skimming? That disinformation happened comstantly? At the moment Bannon is in Italy and tries to influence the upcoming elections for the European Parliament in May. And I ask myself who finances this campaign. Whose agenda it is to destroy this union?


Last edited by carolhathaway on Thu Jan 17 2019, 07:43; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added text)
carolhathaway
carolhathaway
Mastering the tao of Clooney

Posts : 2604
Join date : 2015-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Thu Jan 17 2019, 16:56

It does seem as though there's a concerted effort to destabilize, if not destroy, the West. I can think of several culprits and many reasons why this could be happening. Whoever is behind it and whatever their motives, they're probably having a lot more success than they expected.

Maybe they tried it on here with drumpf, and when they saw how successful they were they decided to spread out to the rest of the free world. I hope you guys have better luck fighting them off than we did. Although there are some small signs of improvement it will take us years to recover from the damage done by this administration.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Thu Jan 17 2019, 17:16

That's an interesting statement from your young friend Carol. Did she elaborate on that? I'm around lots of young people and no-one has ever said that. The biggest fear I've heard is that some thought it would affect the use of their mobiles and they would be cut off?! Obviously not very knowledgeable about economics........



Yes, Lizzy, there are many conflicts and movements out there at the moment - aided and abetted by social media with seemingly very few controls or ethics along the way.

And unfortunately it is likely to get worse if we're not careful. Many young Africans (about 65 million under 24) have no work.Their land is being eroded by deserts as a result of global warming so they can't grow crops. And if by chance they have a mobile phone they will see a world that is seemingly better.........huge irony here is that the one metal needed for a mobile phone is cobalt which is mined in Africa - and massive corruption has followed from that......

Oh and Carol, my understanding of the 'roaming laws' is that it depends on which provider you're with, not which country you're in...........so it will depend which provider in the UK your provider is linked to. Funny passport story: the UK original passport we assume we will go back to (good news for passport makers!) is blue - and the EU are talking about their new passport being......blue! Have to say there is much laughter and stoicism and sarcasm in this country about all aspects of what is happening......

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Fri Jan 18 2019, 20:22

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6607237/Trump-spreads-claim-anonymous-rancher-says-Muslim-prayer-rugs-desert.html

[size=34]Trump spreads claim from anonymous 'border rancher' who says she found Muslim 'prayer rugs' in the New Mexico desert and claims GERMANS sneak across illegally from Mexico[/size]


  • President tweets interview with unidentified rancher from New Mexico border region who claims Muslim 'prayer rugs' were found in the desert

  • Article tied that claim to fears that would-be Islamic terrorists are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border

  • Rancher vented about 'Chinese, Germans, Russians, a lot of Middle Easterners, those Czechoslovakians they caught over on our neighbor’s just last summer'

  • Germans are covered by a waiver agreement that allows them to enter the U.S. without visas for up to 3 months 

  • Trump's dog whistle: 'People coming across the Southern Border from many countries, some of which would be a big surprise' 


By DAVID MARTOSKO, U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:17 EST, 18 January 2019 | UPDATED: 13:06 EST, 18 January 2019

     



President Trump promoted a news article on Friday that featured an unnamed New Mexico rancher complaining about 'prayer rugs' found in the desert near places where illegal immigrants routinely cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
The rancher vented to The Washington Examiner this week about 'Chinese, Germans, Russians, a lot of Middle Easterners, those Czechoslovakians they caught over on our neighbor’s just last summer.'
German nationals are covered by a U.S. government waiver agreement that allows them to legally enter the country for up to three months without visas.
Czechoslovakia split into the countries of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993; both are also covered by the visa waiver scheme.

Trump focused on the 'Middle Easterner', tweeting about the prayer rugs and adding: 'People coming across the Southern Border from many countries, some of which would be a big surprise.'


+4


President Donald Trump used his Twitter platform on Friday to raise alarms about Muslim 'prayer rugs' reportedly found in the desert near the U.S.-Mexico border




'People coming across the Southern Border from many countries, some of which would be a big surprise,' the president tweeted


+4


Prayer rugs in the desert? Observant Muslims who pray five times daily have rugs to prostrate themselves on


+4


Most illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. through the southern border are Mexicans and Central Americans


The Examiner published the story on Wednesday, based on the lone female rancher who was left unidentified aside from a photograph shot from behind.
'There’s a lot of people coming in not just from Mexico,' the woman claimed. 'People, the general public, just don’t get the terrorist threats of that.'
'That’s what’s really scary. You don’t know what’s coming across. We’ve found prayer rugs out here. It’s unreal. It’s not just Mexican nationals that are coming across.'
The mention of prayer rugs is a reference to mats used by Muslims, who pray five times each day in accordance with their religious customs.


+4


The rancher claimed Germans were sneaking across the border; citizens of Germany are allowed free passage in and out of the U.S. without visas for up to three months at a time




The president also raised alarms on Friday about a new migrant caravan set to head north from Central America, insisting that it's proof the U.S. should complete its border wall

[size=18]New migrant caravan departs El Salvador for the United States




Lo
[/size]

The rancher complained about 'OTM' immigrants – those the U.S. Border Patrol calls 'Other Than Mexicans' – whose illegal entries have 'really increased in the last couple years., but drastically within the last six months.'
The rancher who spoke with the Examiner linked her claim of prayer rugs in the New Mexico desert with the public's fear of terrorist attacks.
'People, the general public, just don’t get the terrorist threats of that,' she said of the multinational nature of illegal immigrants. 'That’s what’s really scary.' 
Trump also raised alarms on Friday about a new 'caravan' of Central Americans who are set to travel the length of Mexico in hope of entering the U.S. Many will make claims of asylum.
'Another big Caravan heading our way. Very hard to stop without a Wall!' he tweeted. 
ADVERTISEMENT
Read more:

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY on Sat Jan 19 2019, 15:56

Sounds like this woman is looking to be the next Secretary of State  or maybe head of DHS or ICE. Either that or she and drumpf are both taking the same dementia drug and it ain't workin'!
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie on Sat Jan 19 2019, 23:16

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6608793/Supreme-Court-inaction-suggests-DACA-safe-year.html

[size=34]Supreme Court leaves DACA in place for at least another YEAR and keep Trump's military transgender ban on hold until at least the fall in twin snub to White House[/size]


  • Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation seems likely to survive for at least another year despite Trump trying to abolish it

  • Supreme Court did not take up Trump administration's request to hear case on whether he was allowed to abolish it - which means no hearing before June

  • Court watchers said that means case can't be brought until fall at the earliest which would put decision into 2020 

  • Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the justices decide the calendar for the term at its start

  • They also punted on taking up Trump's ban on transgender people in the military which leaves it in place too


By ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 17:08 EST, 18 January 2019 | UPDATED: 01:20 EST, 19 January 2019

     



The Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation and that President Donald Trump has sought to end seems likely to survive for at least another year.
That's because the Supreme Court took no action Friday on the Trump administration's request to decide by early summer whether Trump's bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was legal. The program has been protected by several federal courts.
Based on the high court's usual practices, the earliest the justices would hear arguments in the case would be this fall, if they decide to hear the case at all. If arguments take place in October, a decision would not be likely before 2020, when it could affect the presidential campaign.
The administration 'never asked for a stay of the rulings below which to us indicated it has known all along that there's no real rush to resolve these important issues,' said Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer in Los Angeles who represents some young immigrants who challenged the administration's plans.


+4


Court decision: As the Supreme Court set its calendar for the first six months of the year, the justices declined to look at DACA and the military transgender ban


+4


Clash: Trump wanted to abolish the program put in place by Obama but it prompted a huge backlash from this affected and from Democrats


Trump and Congress could take the issue out of the court's hands altogether if they strike a deal on the program known as DACA, perhaps even in negotiations to end the partial government shutdown.
The immigration case is among several high-profile issues the court has apparently decided not to add to its calendar for decision by late June. 
Other pending appeals involve Indiana abortion restrictions, whether the main federal employment discrimination law protects LGBT people and Trump's policy to limit military service by transgender people. 
The court also has yet to act on a separate administration request to let the transgender policy take effect, even before the case is decided.
On immigration, the administration sought to end DACA in 2017, but federal courts in California, New York and Washington, DC, have prevented it from doing so. A federal judge in Texas has declared the program is illegal, but refused to order it halted.
DACA has protected about 700,000 people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families that overstayed visas.
The Obama administration created the DACA program in 2012 to provide work permits and protection from deportation to people who, in many cases, have no memory of any home other than the United States.
The Trump administration has said it moved to end the program under the threat of a lawsuit from Texas and other states, raising the prospect of a chaotic end.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined DACA to be unlawful because President Barack Obama did not have the authority to adopt it in the first place. 



2.1k shares



Trump's then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined DACA to be unlawful because President Barack Obama did not have the authority to adopt it in the first place.
Sessions cited a 2015 ruling by the federal appeals court in New Orleans that blocked a separate immigration policy implemented by Obama and the expansion of the DACA program.
Texas and other Republican-led states eventually did sue and won a partial victory in a federal court in Texas. Civil rights groups, advocates for immigrants and Democratic-led states all have sued to prevent the end of the program.
In November, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the administration decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious.
The appeals court noted that the federal government has a long and well-established history of using its discretion not to enforce immigration law against certain categories of people.
While the federal government might be able to end DACA for policy reasons under its own discretion, it can't do so based on Sessions' faulty belief that the program exceeds federal authority, the court held.
The administration has twice tried to sidestep the appeals courts and win a swift ruling by the Supreme Court. The justices rejected a first attempt last year as premature. In taking no action so far on the second request, the high court is signaling that it considers the issue less urgent than the administration does.


[size=34]WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF DACA?[/size]


In September, President Donald Trump said he was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program but gave Congress six months to develop a legislative fix.
The program - created in 2012 by then-President Barack Obama - gave hundreds of thousands of people who came to the country illegally as children two-year, renewable permits to live and work. To qualify, they needed to have arrived before their 16th birthday, been under 31 in June 2012, completed high school or served in the military, and have clean criminal records.
Nearly 683,000 people were enrolled at the end of January, eight out of 10 from Mexico.
The program was scheduled to end on Monday, but a nationwide injunction set by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in January required the administration to resume renewals. However, that ruling does not apply to first-time applicants. 


+4



Loyola Marymount University student and a DACA recipient Maria Carolina Gomez joins a rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program, outside the Edward Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles

WHERE DO THE COURTS STAND ON DACA?
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled on January 9 that the administration failed to justify ending the program and that the plaintiffs - the states of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota as well as the University of California - had a good chance of winning at trial. His nationwide injunction required the administration to resume accepting renewal requests within a week.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis in New York later issued a similar ruling.
On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the administration's unusual request to intervene, which would have leapfrogged the appeals court.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put its review of Alsup's decision on fast track, but legal experts don't expect a decision until June at the earliest. From there, it is expected to go to the Supreme Court, likely keeping DACA alive through November midterm elections.
WHAT HAPPENS IF DACA ENDS? 
Courts have removed much of the urgency, but DACA recipients whose applications are pending are at risk until their petitions are granted.
Former Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, now Trump's chief of staff, last year scrapped the Obama administration's policy of limiting deportations to people who pose a public safety threat, convicted criminals and those who have crossed the border recently, effectively making anyone in the country illegally vulnerable. Deportation arrests have surged more than 40 percent under Trump.
There were nearly 14,000 people with expired permits who applied for renewals but hadn't received them at the end of January. There were also nearly 22,000 whose initial applications had yet to be decided.


+4



Demonstrators hold up their fists as they are arrested outside of the U.S. Capitol during an immigration rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs, on Capitol Hill in Washington

WHERE DOES CONGRESS STAND ON DACA?
In January, the president proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants as part of an immigration package that included $25 billion for a wall and other border enforcement measures and sharp cuts to legal immigration. 
The Senate rejected it.
Immigrant advocates and their allies in Congress want a narrower bill that would protect DACA recipients, possibly combined with limited border enforcement measures, but the administration has balked. Trump has repeatedly blamed Democrats for the impasse, while Democrats say he created it by ending DACA.
Congress must pass a spending bill by March 23 to keep the government running, giving Democrats a chance to condition support on a DACA bill. Democrats forced a partial shutdown in January with that goal in mind but relented after three days.
(Source: Associated Press)

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by party animal - not! on Sun Jan 20 2019, 20:35

The Washington Examiner is owned by Anschutz a billionaire many times over with extreme views and friend of Dumpf. It's publisher is Jared Kushner I believe.

party animal - not!
Clooney superfan

Posts : 9984
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by Donnamarie Yesterday at 21:57

Some of The Washington Examiner’s reporters and op ed writers have been guests on more liberal leaning cable news channels.  Tho the paper is very conservative in its leaning it has a fairly respectable reputation in DC. They try to be fairly balanced in their reporting but this story is stretching it .....  I read that the author of the Muslim rug story used to be a press secretary for an anti-immigrant group.  Also read that these Muslim prayer rug stories have been reported more than once over the last few years and are nothing more than urban myths.  There has been no clear evidence.

This rancher sounds like she’s fear mongering and Trumpster was happy to jump all over her story.

Actually, thank goodness, the publisher is a Ryan McKibben and not Kushner.  That’s a freakin’ scary thought .... right?!
Donnamarie
Donnamarie
Happy Clooney-looney!

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2014-08-26
Location : Washington, DC

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie Yesterday at 22:00

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6619633/U-S-court-lets-Trump-transgender-troop-restrictions-effect.html

[size=34]Supreme Court allows Trump's transgender ban in the military to be ENFORCED while opponents sue in lower courts[/size]


  • Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 5-4 decision that President Donald Trump could enact a policy that will severely limit the service of transgender troops

  • Judges did not decide on the merits of the case, they only lifted injunctions put in place by lower court while the constitutionality of the case is debated 

  • Policy blocks individuals who suffer from a condition known as gender dysphoria from serving in the military with limited exceptions

  • It does let individuals without the condition serve but only if they do so according to the sex they were assigned at birth

  • Trump announced the policy change in July of 2017 that Pentagon later adopted


By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:46 EST, 22 January 2019 | UPDATED: 13:12 EST, 22 January 2019

     


The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 5-4 decision that President Donald Trump could enact a policy that will severely limit the service of transgender troops.
Judges did not decide on the merits of the case, they only lifted injunctions put in place by lower court while the constitutionality of the case is debated.
It will continue to argued in lower courts and is likely to end back before the nation's high court for a final verdict.
Conservatives on the court aligned to keep the president's rules for transgender service, which require the solider to abide by the service standards of his or her birth identity.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — liberals on the court —said in a dissent that the injunctions should have remained in place.  
A California-based federal appeals court will now have the chance to provide a ruling on the substance of the case.


+6


The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military 


+6


Boost: Trump, who visited the MLK Jr. memorial on Monday with Vice President Mike Pence, will see the ruling as a victory



Trump suddenly announced the policy change that's been battled in court in July of 2017






Transgender service had been barred until President Barack Obama's changed the rule. He also rolled back the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy that kept LGBT individuals from serving.  
Trump announced a policy changes of his own on Twitter in July 2017 that were later officially codified by the Pentagon and then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
The policy blocks individuals who suffer from a condition known as gender dysphoria from serving in the military with limited exceptions. 
It does let individuals without the condition serve but only if they do so according to the sex they were assigned at birth.
That policy has been held up in court by the Ninth Circuit, which tends to side against the president. It also ruled against the administration in a dispute over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and on his initial travel ban.
Trump's administration, in a move to get around the circuit court, appealed directly to the Supreme Court in November.  
The president has railed against the Ninth Circuit, which put on a hold on his asylum ban for illegal immigrants. 
Several district courts have blocked the policy, which heard arguments earlier this fall, and the D.C Circuit, which heard arguments in early December.
A Department of Justice spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, hailed the ruling as a victory in a statement that said it cleared a path for the policy to go into effect.
'The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation,' she said. 'Due to lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, our military had been forced to maintain a prior policy that poses a risk to military effectiveness and lethality for over a year.'
Kupec said the Justice Department would continue to fight for the president's policy in court.
'We will continue to defend in the courts the authority and ability of the Pentagon to ensure the safety and security of he American people.'
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it was 'deeply disappointing' to hear that the high court was allowing the policy to proceed before hearing the merits of the case.
She said that lifting the injunction before a final decision is reached creates 'unnecessary confusion for transgender individuals serving in the military' and that Trump's 'ban' essentially brings back 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' for transgender troops. 
'That previous policy directed toward LGBT service members harmed our military then, just as this one will now,' she said. 'Allowing transgender individuals to serve has no negative effect on the military's mission readiness.'





ExpandClose


+6






The U.S. Supreme Court is pictured with the president and first lady on November 8 before Brett Kavanaugh's investiture
Last year, the administration moved to bypass those courts and go straight to the top.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed petitions asking Supreme Court justices to take up the issue in three separate cases that are still in lower courts.
Francisco argues that lower court rulings imposing nationwide injunctions are wrong and warrant immediate review by the high court.  
Typically, the Supreme Court does not like to take up an issue before it has made its way through the lower courts.
The administration had made similar requests of the high court in the past and the Supreme Court has rebuffed those attempts, as it did in a challenge to the administration's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for Dreamers. The Supreme Court sent that matter back to the lower courts before it weighed in.
President Trump has been railing against the Ninth Court and got into an unprecedented battle with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on the role of the judiciary over the past few months.





+6




A supporter of LGBT rights holds up an 'equality flag' on Capitol Hill in Washington, during an event held by Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass. in support of transgender members of the military


+6




The policy blocks individuals who suffer from a condition known as gender dysphoria from serving in the military with limited exceptions


+6




The Supreme Court does not like to bypass the lower courts
On Thanksgiving Day, he slammed the circuit court and Roberts at an impromptu presser.
'We got a lot of bad decisions from the Ninth Circuit, which has become a big thorn in our side. We always lose, and then you lose again and again, and you hopefully win at the Supreme Court, which we have done,' he said on a call with U.S. troops based in Afghanistan.
Trump also acknowledged his spat with Roberts, saying he respects him, but believes he needs to override the Ninth Circuit more often.
'I know that Chief Justice Roberts, John Roberts, has been speaking a little bit about it. And I think - I have a lot of respect for him. I like him and respect him, but I think we have to use some common sense. It's Ninth Circuit, everybody knows it, it's totally out of control. What they're doing, what they're saying, the opinions are very unfair to law enforcement. They're very unfair to our military. And they're very unfair, most importantly, to the people of our country,' he said.  
Trump had complained that a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama ruled against his asylum ban, calling him an 'Obama-judge.' That earned a sharp rebuke from the chief justice of the hight court.
Roberts, who is a Republican and was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush in 2005,  said: 'We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.
'What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
He added: 'The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.'
Trump hit back on Twitter, telling him, 'Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges', and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.'

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by What Would He Say Today at 02:35

Isn’t it funny ... so many Teflon leaders these days.... Hard to believe they all just “happened to rock up” at the same time.... if I had a tin hat I’d wear it ....
What Would He Say
What Would He Say
Training to be Mrs Clooney?

Posts : 2422
Join date : 2013-05-15
Location : OneDAyComo

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by LizzyNY Today at 15:34

WWHS - You're not alone. It does make you wonder, doesn't it?

What I don't understand is the whole transgender kerfuffle. If someone has transitioned why aren't they just accepted as the gender they have chosen? Why does what they were before matter now? And why do so many of us feel entitled to tell the rest of the world how to live? I was taught that if no one was getting hurt I should mind my own business - and I don't see how someone changing their gender hurts anyone else.
LizzyNY
LizzyNY
Possibly more Clooney than George himself

Posts : 5860
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by annemarie Today at 19:48

The whole thing is ridiculous he didn't even serve his country. Yet he doesn't want those who want to serve to do so .
As long as they are mentally sound and can do the job their previous sex is not and never should be a problem.

annemarie
Zip a dee Clooney!

Posts : 7154
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side - part 5

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum