Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,508 posts in this topic

So, that's what trumpsters are reduced to? That seems...fitting and appropriate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The company you keep informs people who you are.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fromm said:

Is that the Hollywood sex cult?

 

I believe there are several. This is in the news now though. The "John of God" story is dormant for now, if that's what you mean.

 

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/bombshell-interview-nxivm-whistleblower-reveals-human-trafficking-from-mexico-satanism-democrat-involvement/

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-members-set-to-testify-against-nxivms-leader_2907788.html

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, who would have thought that former congressional counsel would oppose Trump trying to seize powers duly delegated to Congress in the Constitution?

 

Quote

Eight former top lawyers for the House of Representatives are backing a House lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump from spending billions of dollars of federal funds on a border wall without any specific authorization from Congress.

 

Attorneys who served a bipartisan set of speakers over the past four decades filed a brief Monday urging U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden to rule that the House has standing to pursue the border wall suit and that the dispute is a proper one for the courts despite the reluctance of many judges to weigh in on fights between Congress and the president.

 

“Congress has voted not to provide $8 billion for a border wall, doing so after a drawn-out standoff with the executive branch that led to the longest government shutdown in history. Congress has used all of the political tools in its box, the amicus brief says. “Congress has used all of the political tools in its box.”

 

The suit was filed last month by the House in federal court in Washington after Trump announced plans to tap $8.1 billion in drug interdiction and military construction funds to build the wall despite Congress only appropriating $1.375 billion for border fencing projects in the current fiscal year. Administration officials have argued that much of the funding was unlocked by declaration Trump signed declaring a national emergency due to prospective migrants trying to stream across the border.

 

Justice Department lawyers’ first substantive response to the House suit is due Wednesday. Those attorneys are expected to argue that the courts should essentially butt out of the case and leave the Congress and the administration to battle out the issue in other ways.

 

However, the former House lawyers seek to preempt those arguments by saying Trump’s actions in announcing his plans to proceed with the border wall are such an egregious rebuff of Congress’s appropriations power under the Constitution that adjudicating the suit doesn’t risk courts being drawn into every funding dispute between Congress and the White House or federal agencies.

 

“If there is any slippery slope to fear here, it is what would happen if the House lacked standing to enforce the Appropriations Clause: In such circumstances, the Executive would have an open invitation to flout Congress’s appropriations decisions and to spend funds as it pleases without fear of consequences (save, perhaps, in extreme cases, that of impeachment),” the brief from the former general counsels says, adding that the suit will “restore, not upset, the intended separation of powers between the three branches of government.”

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

WalterA2 hours ago
Remember all the stories about former prosecutors who would have arrested Hillary? Me neither.

 

 
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a clear message from the rank and file at the IRS, Trump's tax returns from 1985-1994 are passed onto the NYT. The picture is about what I expected. He's a fairly large failure and, as one billionaire said, "not a billionaire...he's a broke guy who lives on loans." It'll be very difficult for Trump to find the leaker when he has shit all over all of the federal law enforcement community, nu?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's your "BOOM!" of the day (for people who run around talking about booms)

 

Quote

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) sent letters Tuesday calling for eight current and former Trump administration officials to provide information for two of the panel’s investigations, cautioning that officials who block the interviews from taking place could see their salaries withheld.

"Please be advised that any official at the Department who 'prohibits or prevents' or 'attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent' any officer or employee of the Federal Government from speaking with the Committee could have his or her salary withheld pursuant to section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act," Cummings wrote in the letters.

The move is the latest in an escalating power struggle between the Trump administration and House Democrats over investigations. Tensions between the White House and congressional Democrats have amplified in recent weeks, with President Trump telling reporters last month that he plans to fight "all the subpoenas."

The White House has directed multiple officials to ignore requests by House Democrats to turn over documents to the committee.

The committee noted seven of the eight interview requests recently made related to the panel’s probes were either denied or remain unanswered.

One interview request related to the addition of a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, and another was on whether Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and his staff complied with federal record-keeping laws.

In a letter sent to Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs Cole Rojewski, Cummings noted the Department of Interior has not made Catherine Gulac, the administrative assistant to the deputy secretary; Gareth Rees, the executive assistant to the Office of the Deputy Secretary and Todd Willens, the acting chief of staff and associate deputy secretary — the four officials the committee asked to interview for the Interior probe — available, nor has the department provided documents requested by the committee despite receiving the request in March.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 

 

 

 

Hoops, you're fu'in' nicked my son! I got you banged to rights! Copy pastin' on TT! ha!

 

 

Is there a difference between our two posts?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump on Sunday threatened to raise tariffseven higher on some Chinese products as he repeated the lie that China pays tariffs directly to the U.S. Treasury.

He claimed the “payments” have led to the improvement in the U.S. economy.

In fact, American consumers absorb the cost of tariffs on imported Chinese goods by paying higher prices for the products. The added costs are essentially a regressive tax on consumers because they’re not linked to income levels.

Trump tweeted his intention to hike tariffs to 25% on Friday and threatened to add tariffs to more products. The announcement sent global markets swooning as investors worried Trump’s threat could scuttle trade talks with China and deal a  blow to both economies. The Wall Street Journal reported that China is considering canceling the trade talks in light of Trump’s threats. 

Trump has repeatedly claimed — despite multiple criticisms and corrections — that China pays tariffs directly to the U.S. But the tariffs are placed on goods imported from China. Importers. such as Costco, pay the fees to the U.S. and typically pass on some or all of the extra costs to American consumers in the form of higher prices.

The tariffs are a penalty on Chinese goods (including products made in China by American companies) that make them less competitive, not a tax on the Chinese government or Chinese companies, unless the companies have American operations that are importing goods to the U.S.

China in turn has placed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, hitting American farmers particularly hard. They are suffering record bankruptcies despite some $12 billion in new subsidies from American taxpayers earmarked to mitigate the impact of Trump’s trade war.

Economists have estimated that the trade war is costing the U.S. more than $3 billion a month.

A University of Chicago study found that consumers paid an extra $1.5 billion for washing machines last year because of a Trump tariff imposed at the behest of Whirpool Corp. that only added $82 million to U.S. coffers. That was because manufacturers got away with charging more for dryers along with washing machines, even though no tariffs were added to the cost of dryers.

People on Twitter again pointed out Trump’s stubborn insistence on mischaracterizing the tariffs

 

.

Article and associated Tweets here

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hooperski said:

Is there a difference between our two posts?

 

Why yes there is old chap. My links are clearly attributed back to the source - Twitter, Youtube et al. The section of text here to the left from "Why yes... to et al" is my own writing, attributable to me. 

 

Do you understand the difference now between quoting and copy-pasting?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still purloined material, not original. Just saying ...

( In future any jokes that my mates send me, I'll check that they are organic and locally sourced )

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hooperski said:

Still purloined material, not original. Just saying ...

 

Best not mention the various threads about jokes that some of us so prolifically post to ;)  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AlexTr said:

In a clear message from the rank and file at the IRS, Trump's tax returns from 1985-1994 are passed onto the NYT. The picture is about what I expected. He's a fairly large failure and, as one billionaire said, "not a billionaire...he's a broke guy who lives on loans." It'll be very difficult for Trump to find the leaker when he has shit all over all of the federal law enforcement community, nu?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now