The apprentice lives.

[buckman]

[QUOTE=Nebe;1122290]

Originally Posted by buckman

With that logic
Neither is Fox News.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=buckman;1122289]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I said that about Benghazi and all the hearings and investigations by the R's showed that to be the case ..



Well except that they blatantly lied on TV about it being a tape . There is that �� you seem to forget they changed that narrative 3 days into it ... Trumps administration has lied and the changed their narrative on every time they open their mouth .. and investagation were held and found nothing ... and how amazing since Trump got elected no more investigations into Benghazi ...


You do know that the New York Times and Washington Post is not news right ? Rumors do not equate with evidence

Wow now thats an Amazing statement what news do you think is Real

Yes rumors do not equate with evidence .. May be you should have had the same standard for Obama or Hillary then you'd have some creditability when you make comments like New York Times and Washington Post is not news right


Let the investigation run its course.... see the difference ... I'll accept the outcome ... will you ??? ( its a witch hunt ??? who runs both houses?? oh right the republicans ...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I said that about Benghazi and all the hearings and investigations by the R's showed that to be the case ..The R's were nowhere near as butthurt from losing the executive office as the Dem's and their extreme vitriole and hatred to the point of vicious claims to kill him by a thousands cuts and will not allow him to do his job. You want a socialist country where the government takes care of everyone at the expense of future national debt that is your choice, well it sure is not mine and a little more than half of the rest of this nation.




and laid out my argument I dont see an argument laid out about how it has nothing to do with the russian but seems congress does but even that isn't enough congress is kowtowing to left wing media hype public opinion




Not sure why the same standard of evidence is not required let the chips fall where they may . but i would guess you wouldn't accept the out come if it didn't match what you all ready think..who said I already decided, if there is evidence of a crime, then fine I'll accept that but I don't see any yet. It wouldn't surprise me either way

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Mr Trump told the Russian officials, the Times reported.
"I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

What a leader and people wonder why some are leaking " they must be trying to make America great again "

yep, drain the swamp

I guess he didn't tell us he is filling it back up with his swampy water.
better than communists though

[PaulS]

Mr. Brennan said. “I said American voters would be outraged by any Russian attempt to interfere in the election.”





Mr. Brennan’s prediction proved inaccurate. Though intelligence agencies are unanimous in their belief that Russia directly interfered in the election, it has become a divisive partisan issue, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to accept the conclusion. Mr. Trump has declared that “Russia is fake news” and has tried to undermine the conclusions of his own intelligence services.





He has also tried repeatedly to beat back news reports about his campaign’s ties to Russia. White House officials tried to enlist the F.B.I. and C.I.A. to dispute stories early this year. Then, after the F.B.I. publicly confirmed its investigation, Mr. Trump asked Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, to publicly deny any collusion between Russia and his campaign, according to two former American officials. The Washington Post first reported Mr. Trump’s entreaties.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Mr. Brennan said. “I said American voters would be outraged by any Russian attempt to interfere in the election.”

Ten things Ramble:

1 - Where was the outrage by the dems for the past 90 years of russian / soviet attempts to influence politics in US ?

2 - There is evidence Russia worked with Trump team people.

3 - The evidence has not (yet) proved illegal from what we can see

4 - There is a lot of crap behind the scenes that if true will be bad for Trump - but most/all of it is hearsay

5 - The news channels have been very right and horribly wrong covering this. Sometimes bad luck, sometimes bad reporting, sometimes inherent bias

6 - Resist! Fascist methods to put down the supposed Fascists.

7 - Russians interfere and disrupt - IIWTD - IT IS WHAT THEY DO

8 - Political sabotage: many Anti-Trumpers are sabotaging Trump's team wrapping themselves in the cloak of patriotism even when it is merely for personal / political gain. Makes it difficult to separate the truth from fiction.

9 - IIWTD

10 - Hillary or Trump - we loose either way.

There is significant evidence Russia committed a massive operation to influence, dis-inform, disrupt, and undermine our faith in our government and electoral process. They succeeded as BOTH sides TEAR Each Other Apart, neither willing to team up.

[PaulS]

And yet we have Pres. Trump with inappropriate contact between him and the intelligence community.

[PaulS]

Well atleast he is draining the swamp. Rubes.

The Trump administration, in a significant escalation of its clash with the government’s top ethics watchdog, has moved to block an effort to disclose any ethics waivers granted to former lobbyists who now work in the White House or federal agencies.
The latest conflict came in recent days when the White House, in a highly unusual move, sent a letter to Walter M. Shaub Jr., the head of the Office of Government Ethics, asking him to withdraw a request he had sent to every federal agency for copies of the waivers. In the letter, the administration challenged his legal authority to demand the information.
Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration. Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them.
Mr. Shaub, who is in the final year of a five-year term after being appointed by President Barack Obama, said he had no intention of backing down. “It is an extraordinary thing,” Mr. Shaub said of the White House request. “I have never seen anything like it.”
Marilyn L. Glynn, who served as general counsel and acting director of the agency during the George W. Bush administration, called the move by the Trump White House “unprecedented and extremely troubling.”
“It challenges the very authority of the director of the agency and his ability to carry out the functions of the office,” she said.
In a statement issued Sunday evening, the Office of Management and Budget rejected the criticism and instead blamed Mr. Shaub, saying his call for the information, issued in late April, was motivated by politics. The office said it remained committed to upholding ethical standards in the federal government.
“This request, in both its expansive scope and breathless timetable, demanded that we seek further legal guidance,” the statement said. “The very fact that this internal discussion was leaked implies that the data being sought is not being collected to satisfy our mutual high standard of ethics.”
President Trump signed an executive order in late January — echoing language first endorsed by Mr. Obama — that prohibited lobbyists and lawyers hired as political appointees from working for two years on “particular” government matters that involved their former clients. In the case of former lobbyists, they could not work on the same regulatory issues they had been involved in.
Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama reserved the right to issue waivers to this ban. Mr. Obama, unlike Mr. Trump, automatically made any such waivers public, offering detailed explanations. The exceptions were typically granted for people with special skills, or when the overlap between the new federal work and a prior job was minor.
Ms. Glynn, who worked in the office of government ethics for nearly two decades, said she had never heard of a move by any previous White House to block a request like Mr. Shaub’s. She recalled how the Bush White House had intervened with a federal agency during her tenure to get information that she needed.
Ethics watchdogs, as well as Democrats in Congress, have expressed concern at the number of former lobbyists taking high-ranking political jobs in the Trump administration. In many cases, they appear to be working on the exact topics they had previously handled on behalf of private-sector clients — including oil and gas companies and Wall Street banks — as recently as January.
Mr. Shaub, in an effort to find out just how widespread such waivers have become, asked every federal agency and the White House to give him a copy by June 1 of every waiver it had issued. He intends to make the documents public.
Federal law gives the Office of Government Ethics, which was created in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, clear legal authority to issue such a “data request” to the ethics officers at federal agencies. This is the main power the office has to oversee compliance with federal ethics standards.
It is less clear whether it has the power to demand such information from the White House. Historically, there has been some debate over whether the White House is a “federal agency” or, as it calls itself, the “executive office of the president.” Such an office might not be subject to oversight.
The White House, however, tried on Wednesday to stop the process across the entire federal government, even before most agencies had responded to Mr. Shaub’s April 28 request.
“This data call appears to raise legal questions regarding the scope of O.G.E.’s authorities,” said the letter, which was sent to Mr. Shaub by Mick Mulvaney, the head of the Office of Management and Budget. It continued, “I therefore request that you stay the data call until these questions are resolved.”
The letter, which was obtained by The New York Times after a Freedom of Information request, created confusion among federal agency heads about whether they should honor the request from the ethics office.
Norman Eisen, the top White House ethics lawyer in the first years of the Obama administration, said he believed that the Trump administration was trying to intimidate federal ethics officers, who are career appointees, without actually ordering them to ignore the directive from the ethics chief.
“It is yet another demonstration of disrespect for the rule of law and for ethics and transparency coming from the White House,” Mr. Eisen said.
Mr. Shaub, in a conference call with federal government ethics officers on Thursday, told them that he had the clear authority to make such a request and that they were still obligated under federal law to provide the requested information, according to a federal official who participated in the call.
The Office of Government Ethics, however, does not have the power to take enforcement action directly against the agencies if they do not respond. Traditionally, if it has trouble getting the information it needs, it turns to the White House to get compliance, Ms. Glynn said.
“The agency is more or less dependent on the good graces of the party that is in power,” she said.
Tensions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Shaub first started to grow in late November, when the Office of Government Ethics sent out an unusual series of Twitter messages urging Mr. Trump to limit potential conflicts of interest by selling off his real estate assets. Mr. Shaub then gave a speech in January, after Mr. Trump announced that he would not take such a step, which was highly critical of the incoming president, provoking speculation that Mr. Shaub might be fired before his term ended.
“One of the things that make America truly great is its system for preventing public corruption,” Mr. Shaub said during that speech. “Our executive branch ethics program is considered the gold standard internationally and has served as a model for the world. But that program starts with the office of the president. The president-elect must show those in government — and those coming into government after his inauguration – that ethics matters.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Ten things Ramble:

1 - Where was the outrage by the dems for the past 90 years of russian / soviet attempts to influence politics in US ?

The Russians did more than attempt, they succeeded. And in the most critical way. The Soviet infiltration of FDR's cabinet and overall administration was key to delivering China and Eastern Europe to Communism. And the Dems covered that up and allowed it to continue. They destroyed Joseph McCarthy when he tried to call attention to what happened and to the fact that Soviet agents were still imbedded in the U.S. government.

Nor were the Dems outraged, or even interested, when it was revealed that Ted Kennedy, a sitting Senator, had tried to get the Russians to influence the election against Reagan. Nor was there any big deal about the Obama administration allowing the Uranium One deal as part of a supposed "reset" with Russia.

Romney was laughed at by the Dems when he said Russia was our number one enemy. The Cold War was supposedly over and the Dems wanted to work with Russia--then. Now, of course, Russia is the worst boogeyman, and Trump is supposedly colluding with them.

There is significant evidence Russia committed a massive operation to influence, dis-inform, disrupt, and undermine our faith in our government and electoral process. They succeeded as BOTH sides TEAR Each Other Apart, neither willing to team up.

The Democrats and fellow-traveler segment of the GOP both do a good job of undermining our faith in our government. The Russians can't hope to match the undermining of government done by our own people.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Democrats and fellow-traveler segment of the GOP both do a good job of undermining our faith in our government. The Russians can't hope to match the undermining of government done by our own people.

Yet shoot or detain their own

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yet shoot or detain their own

I meant to say that The Russians can't hope to match us in the undermining of faith in OUR (the U.S.) government done by our own people. Leaving out OUR made it sound like I was saying that Russians can't hope to match us in the undermining of faith in government in general.

I can't conceive of what faith in government means to Russians. The long history of their government has always been one of shooting or detaining their own. They may take for granted that such is the nature of government.

We have been bequeathed with the understanding that we are free from despotic government. And that we have a right and duty to overthrow tyrannical government, even by arms if necessary. Of course, that understanding has been pretty much extinguished. It seems that we now accept that government has the right to do just about anything to us if five judges "interpret" that government can. Even our fellow citizens can shout us down and create mayhem to stop us from speaking. Or create riots and violence without consequence for their actions if their cause is politically correct.

I don't think the Russians influenced us to become that. On the other hand, there are and have been those in our midst, even powerful and politically influential ones, who have admired the Soviet system of central planning ever since its inception.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I meant to say that The Russians can't hope to match us in the undermining of faith in OUR (the U.S.) government done by our own people. Leaving out OUR made it sound like I was saying that Russians can't hope to match us in the undermining of faith in government in general.

I can't conceive of what faith in government means to Russians. The long history of their government has always been one of shooting or detaining their own. They may take for granted that such is the nature of government.

We have been bequeathed with the understanding that we are free from despotic government. And that we have a right and duty to overthrow tyrannical government, even by arms if necessary. Of course, that understanding has been pretty much extinguished. It seems that we now accept that government has the right to do just about anything to us if five judges "interpret" that government can. Even our fellow citizens can shout us down and create mayhem to stop us from speaking. Or create riots and violence without consequence for their actions if their cause is politically correct.

I don't think the Russians influenced us to become that. On the other hand, there are and have been those in our midst, even powerful and politically influential ones, who have admired the Soviet system of central planning ever since its inception.

We are mostly in alignment. As for the 5 judges that can interpret, that is their wheelhouse.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

We are mostly in alignment. As for the 5 judges that can interpret, that is their wheelhouse.

Problem is that they have expanded their wheelhouse. Originally, the power to interpret was confined to application of the Constitution. Now the scope of their wheelhouse doesn't seem to have any bounds.

Just as one tiny example of the many SCOTUS decisions which expanded the power of SCOTUS, there is the current injunction against Trump's travel ban.

The Fourth Circuit has ruled that his foreign travel ban "appears" to discriminate based on religion and that the administration’s argument that the order was needed to protect national security was a “pretext” offered in “bad faith.”

But shouldn't the ruling be whether or not the President has the power to do so, not whether he is pretending something he doesn't mean? Where does this judicial power to interpret someone's mind rather than interpreting law come from? And where does this judicial power to interpret what a law "appears" to do rather than ruling on what it specifically states?

The judges in the majority said they did not buy Trump's assertion that the ban was needed because of the threat of terrorists arriving from the specified countries. They did not "believe" that was the true purpose behind the executive order. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory said that Trump’s order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination”. And he said the order conflicts with the 1st Amendment’s ban on “laws respecting an establishment of religion.”

Again, where does this power come from to rule by personal opinion, personal belief, rather than by interpreting law? Was Judge Gregory's allusion to a context dripping with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination any less vague than his characterization of the words re national security in the ban? Aren't Gregory's words "dripping" with intolerance? Are there actually any words in the ban which drip of "intolerance, animus and discrimination"?

Well, no, such words are not in the ban. But the "context" and words to which Judge Gregory refers occur elsewhere. Those words happened well before the Executive Order was created. They happened during his campaign for President and some after he was elected. He said various things about Muslims. Gregory said those “statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated” the travel order . . . "President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States.”

So, apparently, it is not the EO that is questionable. It is Trump's motivation for it. If the same order had been drafted by Obama or Hillary the EO would be OK. They didn't say the same words about Muslims that Trump did, so they could have drafted exactly the same order.

And, contrary to what Judge Gregory says, the EO does not conflict with the 1st Amendment’s ban on “laws respecting an establishment of religion.” It does not establish a religion. Nor does it prohibit the free exercise of Islam, neither in this country nor elsewhere. Somehow, the Judge "interprets" what is not actually in the EO, nor does the EO even imply such an interpretation.

Furthermore, the EO doesn't, as Judge Gregory "interprets," exclude Muslims from the United States. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide would not be excluded. And the "ban" would apply to non-Muslims as well as Muslims from the specified countries.

Judge Gregory goes on to say “Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.” Talk about being vague! How has the EO gone beyond Trump's constitutional power? Where does the notion of being absolute come from? It might be a nice verbal throw in to make the Judge's opinion sound high minded or even plausible. But what is there to be checked? What is this vague "irreparable harm to individuals across this nation"? This is verbal gibberish to give the Judge's vague opinion the color of justice. But it is not about law. It is not about constitutional interpretation, nor legal interpretation. It is about appealing to emotion rather than law.

Our laws apply to this country and the citizens of this country. Those who are not citizens have limited rights that we have granted them. They don't legally or constitutionally have a right to come here.

The three dissenters faulted the majority for ignoring Supreme Court rulings that called for deference to presidential authority over immigration.

Judge Paul Niemeyer also derided the majority for “fabricating a new proposition of law” that allows judges to use campaign statements to decide on the president’s actions in office. The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority’s adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds — one that transforms the majority’s criticisms of a candidate’s various campaign statements into a constitutional violation.".

He was equally scathing in accusing the majority of “radically extending” Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom in ways that would limit the president’s power over foreign affairs.

So the judicial wheelhouse has gotten a lot larger. Actually this progressive mode of adjudication is limited only by the imagination of a majority of sitting judges. Actual law can be irrelevant when it is confronted by nice sounding opinion.