“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

All The Best

THE ELEPHANT BAR IS CLOSED

I want to thank everyone who participated in the Elephant Bar over the past twelve years. We had millions of visitors from all around the World and you were part of it. Over the past dozen years, two or three times a night, I would open my laptop and some of you were always there. I will miss that.

My plans are to continue my work with technology and architecture. You know my interests and thoughts.

At times, things would get a little rough in the EB. To those of you that I may have offended over the years, I apologize. From all of you, I learned and grew.

An elephant never forgets.
Be well.

Deuce, 21 June 2018

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Mueller is a "principal" officer and not an INFERIOR officer

He has no limit in scope with 17 assistant attorneys reporting to him. Mueller can go anywhere he pleases as a U.S. Attorney and prosecute anyone he pleases. 



The Hill:

The mess Rod Rosenstein made

Many liberals and critics are under the mistaken belief that President Trump is violating the rule of law and civil liberties by criticizing the Robert Mueller investigation and by ordering the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate whether or not the FBI spied on his 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, the president is behaving totally lawfully, and it is Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who are acting unconstitutionally and who are violating Trump’s civil liberties.

Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all gave orders to federal prosecutors to bring prosecutions, and Jefferson ordered a prosecution stopped. President Trump is entirely within his rights to ask the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate whether the Obama administration got the FBI to spy on Trump’s campaign. 

I’ve explained in previous writings why Robert Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional under Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion in Morrison v. Olson. The basic problem is that Mueller is more powerful and famous than are any of the 96 U.S. attorneys, but unlike them he was never nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

In this investigation, Mueller is not acting like an assistant U.S. attorney who is an inferior officer. He is instead acting like a U.S. attorney, who is a principal officer and who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The unconstitutionality of Mueller’s appointment renders everything he has done since May 17, 2017, unconstitutional as well. This includes obtaining a log of calls by President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and his referral of Cohen to the United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. Both the logging and the referral are examples of what the Supreme Court calls the fruit of a poisonous tree.

When an official uses government power in an unconstitutional way, anything that results from it is subject to the exclusionary rule and is not admissible in court. Since the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York was started due to an arguably unconstitutional call log that violates both the Appointments Clause and attorney-client privilege, the federal courts should hold that any prosecutions that result of Cohen or anyone else that grew out of the Mueller referral are unconstitutional and null and void.

Moreover, Mueller’s prosecution of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in Virginia is unconstitutional even if some of his prosecutors have special status as members of the relevant U.S. Attorney’s office in that state. Their actions are under Mueller’s supervision. Because of Mueller’s unconstitutional appointment as special counsel, the raid of Manafort’s house is also the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Deputy Attorney General’s Rod Rosenstein’s refusing to make public his full order appointing Mueller and defining the scope of Mueller’s investigation calls to mind the secret trials of the Court of Star Chamber in England, which has been justifiably reviled since its abolition in 1641. 

I am not aware of any prior deputy attorney general of the United States who has made as big and as consequential a mistake as has Rosenstein in his appointment of Robert Mueller. Not only has he violated Trump’s civil liberties and the rule of law by unconstitutionally giving Robert Mueller the powers of a principal officer without Mueller’s having been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, he has undermined in the American people’s eyes the integrity of the Justice Department itself.


Steven G. Calabresi is a co-author of “The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush” and the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

252 comments:

  1. Advice and consent

    The Appointments Clause confers plenary power to the President to nominate various officials. It also confers plenary power to the Senate to reject or confirm a nominee, through its advice and consent provision. As with other separation of powers provisions in the Constitution, the wording here both ensures accountability and preempts tyranny.[1] This separation of powers between the President and Senate is also present in the (immediately preceding) Treaty Clause of the Constitution, which gives international treaty-making power to the President, but attaches to it the proviso of the Senate's advice and consent.

    Several framers of the U.S. Constitution explained that the required role of the Senate is to advise the President after the nomination has been made by the President. Roger Sherman believed that advice before nomination could still be helpful. Likewise, President George Washington took the position that pre-nomination advice was allowable but not mandatory. The notion that pre-nomination advice is optional has developed into the unification of the "advice" portion of the power with the "consent" portion, although several Presidents have consulted informally with Senators over nominations and treaties.

    The actual motion adopted by the Senate when exercising the power is "to advise and consent", which shows how initial advice on nominations and treaties is not a formal power exercised by the Senate. On Nov. 21, 2013, the Senate changed its rules regarding the number of votes needed to end debate on a presidential nomination and bring it to a vote. Before that date, a minority of senators could engage in a filibuster and block a vote on a nomination unless three-fifths of senators voted to end debate. Under the new rules, a simple majority is all that is needed to end debate. The only exception was for nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, which could still be blocked from going to a vote by a filibuster, until the Senate rules were again changed on April 6th, 2017 during Senate debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

    {...}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. {...}

      Congress itself may not exercise the appointment power; its functions are limited to the Senate's role in advice and consent, and to deciding whether to vest a direct appointment power over a given office in the President, a Head of Department, or the Courts of Law.

      The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were particularly concerned that Congress might seek to exercise the appointment power and fill offices with their supporters, to the derogation of the President's control over the executive branch. The Appointments Clause thus functions as a restraint on Congress and as an important structural element in the separation of powers. Attempts by Congress to circumvent the Appointments Clause, either by making appointments directly, or through devices such as "unilaterally appointing an incumbent to a new and distinct office" under the guise of legislating new duties for an existing office, have been rebuffed by the courts.

      (here is where it gets interesting)

      Appointment of inferior officers

      The Appointments Clause divides constitutional officers into two classes: principal officers, who must be appointed through the advice and consent mechanism; and inferior officers, who may be appointed through advice and consent of the Senate, but whose appointment Congress may place instead in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.[9] An earlier version of the Appointments Clause would have given the President a broader power to "appoint officers in all cases not otherwise provided for by this Constitution," but some delegates of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention worried that this language would permit the President to create offices as well as to fill them, a classic case of institutional corruption. The requirement that the President can appoint inferior officers only when Congress has "by Law vest[ed]" that power in the President sought to preclude that possibility.

      One chief questions recurs under the "by Law" language: Who are "inferior Officers," not subject to the requirement of advice and consent; and what constitutes a "Department," when Congress seeks to place the appointment power away from the President? As an initial matter, most government employees are not officers and thus are not subject to the Appointments Clause. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that only those appointees "exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States" are "Officers of the United States," and hence it is only those who exercise such "significant authority" who must be appointed by a mechanism set forth in the Appointments Clause. The Framers of the U.S. constitution did not define the line between principal officers and inferior officers, and the Supreme Court has been content to approach the analysis on a case-by-case basis rather than through a definitive test.

      The Court listed in Morrison v. Olson (1988) certain factors as hallmarks of "inferior Officer" status, such as removability by a higher executive branch official other than the President, and limitations on the officer's duties, jurisdiction, and tenure. In Edmond v. United States (1997) the Court stated that "‘inferior Officers' are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate." Among those officers recognized as "inferior" are district court clerks, federal supervisors of elections, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, and an Independent Counsel appointed under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
      {...}

      Delete
    2. {...}

      Appointments by heads of departments

      Another chief question is, what constitutes a "Department," when Congress seeks to place the appointment power away from the President? The phrase "Heads of Departments" has not been precisely defined by the Supreme Court. On the one hand, judicial interpretations of the phrase refer to the heads of departments that are within the executive branch, or according to Buckley v. Valeo "at least have some connection with that branch." Under this view, the heads of all agencies and departments exercising executive power under the President would seem to qualify as "Heads of Departments." The Court interpreted in Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1991) "Heads of Departments" to refer "to executive divisions like the Cabinet-level departments." The use of the phrase "like the Cabinet-level departments" could mean that, in addition to the Cabinet departments, other entities within the executive branch that are sufficiently analogous to the Cabinet departments may qualify as "Departments" for purposes of the Appointments Clause. On the other hand, the Freytag Court itself seemed unclear what it meant by the phrase "like the Cabinet-level departments," and certainly stepped back from any bright-line test. The Freytag Court sought to harmonize its analysis with the interpretation given the different term "executive Departments" in the Opinion Clause (which has been interpreted to refer only to Cabinet departments) and with earlier cases that suggested that only the Cabinet Secretaries qualified as "Heads of Departments."

      Ultimately, the Freytag Court seems to have reserved the question whether the heads of non-Cabinet executive-branch agencies could be deemed to be "Heads of Departments" for purposes of the Appointments Clause. Perhaps the phrase "like the Cabinet-level departments" was included in Freytag as an indication that the Court would not necessarily be inflexible about requiring Cabinet status in future cases. If that is so, then "Heads of Departments" would appear to include (as Justice Antonin Scalia reasons in his concurrence in Freytag) the heads of the Cabinet Departments and also the heads of "all independent executive establishments."

      From 1999 to 2008, a change in the statute governing the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") permitted a number of judges of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to be appointed by the USPTO Director. This arrangement was challenged as unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause because the appointing party was not the Heads of the Department. In order to avoid the crisis that would result from new challenges to many BPAI and TTAB decisions made in that period, Congress passed a 2008 amendment to the statute which specifies that the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for such appointments, and permitting the Secretary to retroactively appoint those persons named by the USPTO Director.

      REFER. and footnotes

      Delete
  2. This will ultimately end extra-constitutionally. The "Constitution", according to the left, is "living and breathing" and from their view says what they say it says.

    I doubt that one in five of our elected leaders has read it and that one in ten understands it.

    All levels of institutional governance have been reduced to contempt and cynicism. We are past all that. The left under Obama used and ignored whatever suited them. To date, they have not been held accountable.

    Our press and media are a mockery of truth. Our touchy feely educational system has reduced knowledge and intellectual discernment to the self serving dogma of the left.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

    John Adams

    ReplyDelete
  3. .

    (see Morrison v Olsen)

    The rules governing the special counsel (prosecutor et al) have been established and modified by Congress over the decades. SCOTUS ruled 7-1 in 1988 that the Special Counsel statutes were constitutional in Morrison v Olsen.

    When you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you don't have the facts or the law, break out the ad homimems.

    All part of the plan.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. .

    The Art of the Deal isn't

    Trump bellows that He negotiated a great deal, perhaps the greatest deal ever, on prescription drug costs. He didn't; yet, the Trumpkins scream 'Wow!'.

    Trump touts the great deals, perhaps the greatest ever, He has negotiated or is negotiating on China, and NAFTA, and a host of other deals with individual companies and trading partners. He hasn't; yet, the Trumpkins shout "Wow! and dance with glee.


    Trump's China Deal is the Worst Ever


    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. The rules governing the special counsel (prosecutor et al) have been established and modified by Congress over the decades. SCOTUS ruled 7-1 in 1988 that the Special Counsel statutes were constitutional in Morrison v Olsen.

    Many a rule and may a law has been altered, often on a daily basis. The Constitution In the past 200 years, has been amended 27 times. Every and all changes in those 200 years must comply with the original approval and the 27 amendments. Morrison v Olsen was a decision based on a different set of facts and decisions. They may apply or be relevant to this case. I believe they will not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm with A. Dershowitz.

    We should get rid of the Special Council.

    I'm beginning to think we should get rid of the FBI too.

    The CIA still hangs by a thread, in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ultimate test is:

      Can Quirk elude the entity ?

      Mostly this has been answered in the affirmative, Certainly with the FBI and any Special Council they have ever thrown at the man.

      Some slight question remains as to whether the CIA has ever handled or could handle Quirk.

      Delete

  7. May 23, 2018
    T Minus Two Years for a War with China
    By David Archibald
    First of all, how do we know that the war with China is definitely on the agenda? We tend to rationalize other countries' behavior because it is hard to accept, in this day and age, that a country would go to war just for the sake of it. Thus, there is a theory that China is just testing the limits of what it can get away with in the South China Sea, the Senkakus, etc., like a two-year-old testing the limits of tolerated behavior, but will stop short of war.

    It was the same situation prior to World War II. There were some individuals who saw what was coming and prepared accordingly. A few years ago, I was at a reception in Washington at which the guest of honor was Gen. Edward Rowny, then aged 96. As a teenager, Edward Rowny attended the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. He saw that Germany was preparing for war, so he came back to enroll at West Point. At about the same time, a British air force officer inspected a German airfield for fighter aircraft. When he saw that the airfield was set up with refueling points around the apron, to minimize turnaround time between sorties, he realized that the Germans were intending to fight a war, not just enforce a peace. Churchill was both hero and villain in this period in that while he was a lone voice in the House of Commons warning of the coming conflict, he was also the original author in 1919 of the "ten-year rule" under which the U.K. declared that, as it was not expecting a war within the following ten years, it could run down its armed forces. The effects of that policy were still being felt when the war started in 1939. The modern parallel is Obama's shrinking of the defense budget from 2010.


    Hitler made it easy in that he laid out what he was going to do in the book he wrote in prison. China has been no less transparent. In an internal Chinese Communist Party propaganda film entitled Silent Contest, the narration states, "The process of China's achieving a national renaissance will definitely involve engagement and fight against the U.S.'s hegemonic system. This is the contest of the century, regardless of people's wishes."

    Chinese naval officers can't stand to be in the same room as Japanese naval officers – the hate they have drilled into them overcomes any basic civility they might have. If you want to read the heartbeat of that hate, the Japanese Foreign Ministry provides a monthly update of Chinese incursions into Japanese waters around the Senkaku Islands:



    Those red vertical bars are the steady drumbeat of the war to come. The fishing vessels involved are paid by the Chinese government to do this. The incursions started with Xi Jinping's ascendancy to chairman of the Central Military Commission in 2012, before he became president in 2013. Until those bars go to zero, war is coming in East Asia.

    So that just leaves the question of the timing. To that end, Captain Farnell's May 17 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee is enlightening. Captain Farnell reminds us that President Xi instructed the People's Liberation Army to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2020. That is a scant two years away now but is looking like the date for a couple of reasons. Firstly, China's economic and strategic environment is deteriorating. Manufacturing growth has flatlined. Don't be concerned about headline growth, because a lot of that is borrowing money to build things that don't provide an economic rate of return. When China's borrowing ability is tapped out or the bad debt pile gets too deep, that growth will disappear. China's coal production, the energy equivalent of 50 million barrels per day of oil, is projected to peak in 2020 and then go into long-term decline. As the following graph shows, China's oil production peaked in 2015 and has tipped over into long-term decline at 200,000 barrels per day per annum. This is a 5.5-percent-per-annum decline rate on the current production level.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 2017, China became the world's largest oil-importer at 8.4 million barrels per day. Not including any growth in consumption, by 2020, that will have risen to 8.8 million barrels per day. China now imports 20% of its protein requirement as soybeans, which are processed through pigs and chickens into animal protein. That is another vulnerability that can only get worse.

      The second reason why 2020 will be the year is that President Xi is already 64 years old, so by 2022, he will be 66. The oldest leader of a military campaign is most likely Enrico Dandolo, the 42nd doge of Venice. As a blind 90-year-old, he led the sacking of Constantinople, now Istanbul, in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. Given that yardstick, Xi could bide his time and still live a long time as ruler of the world. One of the reasons why Hitler started his war in 1939 was that he was turning 50, and it was thought that if he didn't start his war that year, he might miss out on it altogether.

      All these considerations will be swirling around in Xi's mind, and thus the fates of millions are decided. Oh, and he wants to establish a dynasty like Mao before him. Mao's son was killed by a U.S. air raid during the Korean War, thus China has so far avoided leadership by inheritance as per the North Korean communist model. But Xi has started talking about the importance of "red genes" in running the country, legitimizing rule by the descendants of the generals of the Long March. This is to set his daughter up to succeed him.

      The importance of knowing is that it should be the trigger for acting. After the war with China has started, whether in 2020 or a bit delayed, we are likely to say to ourselves that if we had known that was coming, we would have done things differently over the last two years. One important thing we should be doing right now is to have as little as possible to do with China, neither importing what they make nor letting them into the country. One of the first things the Trump administration did was to ban entry by people from countries that were sources of Muslim terrorists. China is setting out to kill a lot more Americans than the Muslims ever will. Proceed accordingly.

      David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare.



      Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/t_minus_two_years_for_a_war_with_china.html#ixzz5GMHxst7M
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
    2. I have no other.....I just put the question up to our betters, like Quirk,who has been under the covers all his life, as to a war with the slant eyes.

      Seems we are stretched a little thin for it right now.

      I ask Quirk, who says he knows everything -

      Quirk, is USA about to go to War with the slant eyes ?

      If so, what do you recommend that I, personally, actually do ?

      Thankkee

      Delete
    3. I have no idea, or other, either....

      Delete
    4. .

      Bend over, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

      .

      Delete
  8. I swear to God, I check Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the only tool I see the youngers using is the bullhorn.

    They have mastered the bullhorn, and nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MS-13 is a pack of rabid animals.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Roberto D'Aubuisson knew how to handle 'em.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that I'm advocating his methods be imported here.

      Delete
    2. My method is to build an impenetrable border wall, and arrest and deport permanently those that are here.

      Delete
    3. .

      I heard the Wall proposal has been downsized due to budget considerations.

      Now, they are just talking an impenetrable border wall around Idaho. Nothing in nothing out.

      They say it will provide a good test case. I guess I can agree with this.

      .

      Delete
  11. Report: Kim fears coup if he travels to Singapore for Trump summit - 5/23/18
    A recent shake-up of North Korea's top military command may indicate nervousness on Kim's part. More

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/report_kim_fears_coup_if_he_travels_to_singapore_for_trump_summit_.html

    HeH

    Gentlemen, we are free men.

    Kim is a prisoner in his own country.

    God Bless The USA !!!

    Even Quirk, out on probabation again, still retains some freedom of movement, long as he checks in on schedule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have moved the Court to put Quirk under my beneficent control and responsibility.

      Still awaiting the Court's response.....

      Delete
  12. Fire Rosenstein, Mueller and Giuliani too.

    Rudy is urging Trump to meet with Mueller, a big mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Written responses to written questions are perfectly appropriate, are all that is needed, and mostly immune to trapping, which is all Mueller is interested in.....Rudy is worthless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quirk wouldn't fall for it, Trump should not either.....

      Delete
    2. Who is the new playa, Sam Clovis ?

      He looks a little shifty, as Uncle Jerry used to say....

      Delete
    3. You don't need me, all you need is Drudge:


      REPORT: Cohen 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks...
      'SPYGATE': Trump blasts 'Criminal Deep State'...
      Comey Returns Fire...
      Growing signs counterintelligence operation was deployed against campaign...
      NYT Columnist Worries Mueller Investigation HELPING President!
      Rejects Speedy Trial Law To Delay Russian Collusion Trial...
      Move to sentencing signals key step?
      Manafort to ask federal judge to exclude evidence from raids...
      What Changed? Same Media Who Excuse Special Counsel Abused Ken Starr...
      RUDY REVERSES: WANTS TRUMP TO DO MUELLER INTERVIEW....DRUDGE

      Delete
    4. I like all the Jews in and about the Trump Inner Circle. This would include Bibi, and Javanka.

      If you do not you are an anti-semite.

      Easy test to discover your true inner you.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete


  15. .

    Papadopoulos was not setup and entrapped !

    .

    ReplyDelete
  16. .

    Trumped

    Trump comes up with these wild and outrageous charges simply because experience has shown him that his base has quaffed enough of the Kool-Aid and is just that stupid and credulous that if he just keeps repeating the charges they will believe whatever he tells them. Morons.

    He says Obama and the deep state 'embedded a spy IN his campaign' and his base nods its collective heads and reaches for another Kool-Aid. He offers absolutely zero proof of the charges but it doesn't matter. That's why it's funny to see his key appointees contradict him.

    Watched video today of Mike Pompeo addressing a congressional committee. When asked whether he believed there was a criminal 'deep state' conspiracy out to get Trump, Pompeo didn't hesitate in saying there is no deep state and that there is no institutional effort to oust Trump.

    Giuliani says they don't know if Trump's charges are actually true.

    The White House has refused to back up Trump on the charges.

    Yet, Trump throws this shit out and his echo chamber repeats and amplifies it.

    Drudge, as noted by the English major above, every 'commentator' on FOX news, the Nunes/Jordon clown show, and every right wing blogger or writer with the strength to crawl out from under his rock. And the Trumpkins inundated by the barrage and grateful no one actually asks them to think nod and shout 'Disgraceful'. Or they just whine.


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. .

      The FBI and DOJ are pure as the wind-driven snow, my MSM tells me so.

      .

      Delete


    2. .

      The FBI is running a clean investigation against Trump, just like they did with Hillary.

      .

      Delete
  17. For Quirk:

    A yacht, cocaine, prostitutes: Winery partly owned by Nunes sued after fundraiser event

    http://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/article210912434.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. Video:

    Half Dome Cables in a thunderstorm:

    https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article211733444.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Quirk is hanging his head in shame today.

    He is NOT coming out to play.

    ReplyDelete
  20. JaVanka has gotten their security clearances back again.

    Now they can continue to say whatever they want to say.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Many lower FBI Agents are chomppin' at the bit, asking to be allowing to testify against Comey & /company :

    Source: Drudge Report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -

      Drudge Report and Hannity

      Delete
    2. That's what I've wanted from the start.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    4. The 2nds and 3rds in command know a lot.

      Let them speak freely before Congress.

      Delete
  22. I am taking bets, but a third party holds the beats, and makes the payoffs.

    I've learned my lessons betting here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All this is going right to Keyatta's White House, in case you hadn't guessed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. FBI Agent at Mike Flynn Interrogation Is Ready to Testify Against McCabe, Strzok and Comey!


    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/breaking-fbi-agent-at-mike-flynn-interrogation-is-ready-to-testify-against-mccabe-strzok-and-comey/

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am glad we're had this conservation over a problematic topic.

    I feel much less hurt now.

    I even feeling like I'm heeling.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's like an early morning prayer sincerely believed in....now I feel I can go forth to speak forthrightly to deal with the intractable issues of the day......

    G'day, to you !

    ReplyDelete
  27. .

    I even feeling like I'm heeling.

    I noticed you've been heeling, too; but I guess I was just too nice to mention it.


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm using it in the older English sort of way, to show happiness, too kick one's heels for joy, etc.,to feel that one is improving, getting better, able now to kick one's heels for the pure joy of it....

      Qurik reads nothing but comic books, and that is why he doesn't pick up on it. AND, he was originally from Poland, so you can forgive him.



      Delete
    2. .

      :o)

      You sound like Trump.

      It's worse than I thought.

      .

      Delete
    3. If YOU were raised on a steady diet of Polish Comic Books, you would be verbally challenged too.

      That Polish/English novelist Joseph Conrad gave it up and turned to the more expressive language, English, for his best books.

      I can certainly understand why, even if Quirk can't.

      When writing it's nice to have a whole bunch of expressive words and phrases to chose from, not a few belches and farts.

      Delete
  28. Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, received a secret payment of at least $400,000 (£300,000) to fix talks between the Ukrainian president and President Trump, according to sources in Kiev close to those involved.

    ...

    Mr Cohen denies the allegation.

    The meeting at the White House was last June. Shortly after the Ukrainian president returned home, his country's anti-corruption agency stopped its investigation into Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

    ...

    There is no suggestion that Mr Trump knew about the payment.

    A second source in Kiev gave the same details, except that the total paid to Mr Cohen was $600,000.

    ReplyDelete


  29. .

    My hearthrob!
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/AP-Mueller-02-jrl-170517_1_16x9_992-360x188.jpg

    .

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wynton Marsalis on Rap.

    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAO_enUS720US720&biw=1200&bih=536&ei=NEkGW5PsOrWR0PEPv-SB6Ag&q=wynton+marsalis+on+rap&oq=wynton+marsalis+on+rap&gs_l=psy-ab.3...34344.36494.0.36916.7.7.0.0.0.0.219.1131.0j4j2.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.5.924...0j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.fqfu67sDnXQ

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Vote Mummy!

    http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Nancy+Pelosi+Democratic+House+Leader+Nancy+nM8-M3EGlMnl.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  33. A noted psychiatrist was a guest speaker at an academic function where Nancy Pelosi happened to appear.
    Ms Pelosi took the opportunity to schmooze the good doctor a bit and asked him a question with which he was most at ease.

    'Would you mind telling me, Doctor,' she asked, 'how you detect a mental deficiency in somebody who appears completely normal?'

    'Nothing is easier,' he replied. 'You ask a simple question which anyone should answer with no trouble. If the person hesitates, that puts you on the track..'

    'What sort of question?' asked Pelosi.

    Well, you might ask , 'Captain Cook made three trips around the world and died during one of them. Which one?''

    Pelosi thought a moment, and then said with a nervous laugh, 'You wouldn't happen to have another example would you? I must confess I don't know much about history.'

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm will to bet he died on the second trip, and the guy that died on the third trip was his lookalike.

    Prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proof must be in the form of DNA evidence.

      Delete
  35. Quirk has a problem with his case,

    ...and his hair:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/judge-orders-30-year-man-vacate-parents-home-55359566

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it was his shoes. We wasn't going out without his shoes, which he couldn't find because he had never worn them. He always walked with an umbrella tough..

      I think shoes is a good legal dodge. What about all the broken bottles and used syringes.

      You can't expect anyone to go out in that.

      Delete
    2. What if he ends up with STD .....STTDS ? - sexually toes transmited diseases ?

      Then your county would be on the hook and so would you.

      Delete
    3. We are all better off is he stays in Mom's basement.

      Delete
  36. Stormy day in West LA.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/stormy-daniels-day-west-hollywood-55397674

    ReplyDelete
  37. Doug rules Trump can't Tweet before 1 pm, nor after 6 pm.

    ReplyDelete
  38. How the Clinton-Emails Investigation Intertwined with the Russia Probe
    By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

    Obama administration officials in the DOJ and FBI saw the cases as inseparably linked.
    ‘Cruz just dropped out of the race. It’s going to be a Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable.”

    It was a little after midnight on May 4, 2016. FBI lawyer Lisa Page was texting her paramour, FBI counterespionage agent Peter Strzok, about the most stunning development to date in the 2016 campaign: Donald Trump was now the inevitable Republican nominee. He would square off against Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ certain standard-bearer.

    The race was set . . . between two major-party candidates who were both under investigation by the FBI.

    In stunned response, Strzok wrote what may be the only words we need to know, the words that reflected the mindset of his agency’s leadership and of the Obama administration: “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.”

    MYE. That’s Mid-Year Exam, the code-word the FBI had given to the Hillary Clinton emails probe.

    “It sure does,” responded Page. Mind you, she was not just any FBI lawyer; she was counsel and confidant to the bureau’s No. 2 official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

    If the thousands of text messages between Ms. Page and Agent Strzok are clear on anything, they are clear on the thinking of the bureau’s top brass.

    In its Trump antipathy, the media-Democrat complex has admonished us to ignore the Strzok-Page texts. FBI officials are as entitled as anyone else to their political opinions, we’re told; and if they found Trump loathsome, they were no different from half the country.

    That’s the wrong way to look at it. Regardless of their politics (which, the texts show, are not as left-wing as some conservative-media hyperbole claims), these FBI officials are a window into how the Obama administration regarded the two investigations in which Strzok and Page were central players: Mid Year Exam and Trump-Russia — the latter eventually code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”

    The two investigations must not be compartmentalized. Manifestly, the FBI saw them as inseparably linked: Trump’s victory in the primaries, the opening of his path to the Oval Office, meant — first and foremost — that the Hillary investigation had to be brought to a close.

    And that is because bringing it to a close was already known, by May 4, to mean closing it without charges — opening her path to the Oval Office. It was the calculation of the FBI, the Obama Justice Department, the Obama-led intelligence agencies, and the Obama White House that wrapping up MYE was essential to stopping Donald Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump had won the nomination, so now the pressure was on to remove the cloud of felony suspicion hanging over Mrs. Clinton.

      The mistake is often made — I’ve made it myself — of analyzing the tanking of the Clinton emails case in a vacuum. There are, after all, reasons unrelated to Donald Trump that explain the outcome: Obama was implicated in Clinton’s use of a non-secure email system; Obama had endorsed Clinton; many high-ranking Obama Justice Department officials stood to keep their coveted positions, and even advance, in a Hillary Clinton administration; the Obama Justice Department was hyper-political and Clinton was the Democratic nominee.

      But the Clinton investigation did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of Donald Trump’s gallop through the Republican primaries and, just as important, of the Obama administration’s determination to regard the Trump campaign as a Kremlin satellite.

      Conveniently, the Strzok-Page text occurred in what we might call the “late spring.” As I outlined in yesterday’s column, the “late spring” is the vague timeframe former Obama-administration officials gave to the House Intelligence Committee when asked when the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, briefed the president’s National Security Council about Carter Page. An obscure Trump campaign adviser, Page was regarded as a likely clandestine Russian agent by the Obama administration, on what appears to be flimsy evidence.

      So . . . let’s think this through.

      Delete
    2. By May 4, the Obama administration has already concluded that the Trump campaign is part of a Russian covert op that must be stopped — or at least has rationalized that the Trump-Russia storyline can work politically to damage the Republican candidate.

      At the same time, even though MYE is not yet formally “finished,” even though key witnesses (including Clinton herself) have not been interviewed, even though essential evidence (including the laptops used to store and vet Clinton’s emails) are not yet in the FBI’s possession, Director Comey and his top aides are already drafting the exoneration speech he will give two months later, recommending against prosecution.

      And everybody knows the fix is in. The Strzok-Page texts show that the pressure to schedule the Clinton interview is based on the imperative to shut down the case, not to weigh what she had to say for investigative purposes. Clinton is permitted to have her co-conspirators represent her as lawyers at her interview — in violation of federal law, professional-ethics canons, and rudimentary investigative practice — precisely because no one regards the interview as a serious law-enforcement exercise.

      When Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s shameful Arizona tarmac meeting with former President Clinton becomes a scandal in late June, she tries to mitigate the damage by announcing an intention to accept whatever recommendation the FBI makes. Lisa Page spitefully texts Peter Strzok. “And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.”

      That was July 1. The very next day, the FBI does its just-for-show interview of Mrs. Clinton. Three mornings later, July 5 (at the start of the work week after Independence Day), Comey holds his press conference to announce that, of course, no charges will be brought.

      To accomplish this, he effectively rewrites the classified-information statute Clinton violated; barely mentions the tens of thousands of official government business emails that she destroyed; claims without any elaboration that the FBI can see no evidence of obstruction; and omits mention of her just-concluded interview in which — among other things — she pretended not to know what the markings on classified documents meant.

      On the very same day, the FBI’s legal attaché in Rome travels to London to interview Christopher Steele, who has already started to pass his sensational dossier allegations to the bureau. And with the help of CIA director John Brennan and British intelligence, the FBI is ready to run a spy — a longtime CIA source — at Carter Page in London on July 11, just as he arrives there from Moscow.

      With the pressure to finish MYE in the rearview mirror, Hillary Clinton looked like a shoo-in to beat Donald Trump. By mid September, Lisa Page was saying as much at a meeting in Deputy Director McCabe’s office. But Strzok was hedging his bets: Maybe “there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

      Soon, as the campaign wound down, the FBI and the Obama Justice Department were on the doormat of the FISA court, obtaining a surveillance warrant on Carter Page, substantially based on allegations in the Steele dossier — an uncorroborated Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed. Meanwhile, the FBI/CIA spy was being run at George Papadopoulos, and even seeking a role in the Trump campaign from its co-chairman, Sam Clovis.


      Or maybe you think these things are unrelated . . .


      https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-clinton-email-fbi-linked-cases/

      Delete
  39. .

    "So . . . let’s think this through"


    :O)


    Poor, Andy.

    He invested the last year in this story and he can't give up his conspiracy theories now. In the last episode of Lost in D.C., he claimed the FBI/DOJ/Obama cabal keeps changing its story as more news comes out; yet, old Andy has been doing the same thing since he started his 'investigative' reporting on the story. The last episode was all about the Obama administration conspiracy and now he's back to the FBI. It's kind of like those old serials you used to see on the Saturday matinee in the old days where Flash Gordon's space ship is about to be blown out of the skies and we get the message 'see you nest week'.

    Every one of McCarthy's articles is filled with speculation and 'his' opinions and phrases like "We can assume." This week he is back with his speculation on not what Strzok and Page said but on what they did (or didn't do). He tells us what we can assume about them but fails to tell what they actually did, for instance the fact that Strzok was a key player in the investigation that led to the release of the Weiner computer info that led to Comey's letter to Congress 11 days before the election indicating the FBI had reopened the investigation into the Hillary e-mail something she still blames for her loss.

    But Doug from Zort, still sits there each week eating his popcorn and Milk Duds and waiting for the exciting ending.

    .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959)[1] is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

      A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others.

      The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.

      ===

      Quirk:
      Detroit adman known for audacious posts on Elephant Bar Blog.

      Delete
    2. .

      Strzok and Page really didn't like Trump. But then, what moron would?

      Did that affect the way they actually did their jobs? No doubt it's possible. Given their e-mails, it wouldn't even be much of a surprise. The only thing missing is evidence that they didn't do their job. Speculating and assuming is find for partisan writers and conspiracy theorists but old Andy would be laughed out of court if he told a judge 'Your Honor, we can assume this man is guilty and...'

      .

      Delete


    3. .

      No signs yet of FBI Corruption!

      .

      Delete
    4. "Strzok and Page really didn't like Trump. But then, what moron would?"

      ===

      I like Trump better than Strzok and Page and Mueller and Quirk!

      (And Obama)

      Delete
    5. .

      He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.


      I know McCarthy's background. I'm careful to check that kind of stuff before I comment about anyone. You should try it, Dougie. It takes a little time but it also provides context. In this case, all it tells me is he should know better.

      The only excuse I see for him is that he knows his audience. He is not speaking as a lawyer, he is speaking as a political commentator and he knows he won't be questioned or sanctioned given the credulity and intelligence level of that audience.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      I like Trump better than Strzok and Page and Mueller and Quirk!

      (And Obama)




      Well, that answers the moron question.


      .

      Delete
    7. .

      No signs yet of FBI Corruption!


      Still waiting for that big reveal on the vast Deep State conspiracy you guys keep talking about, you know the one involving all the key people Trump himself hired, the one people like Pompeo, everyone in the White House except the president, and even Giuliani say either doesn't exist or they have no proof of.

      Get back to me when you havge something other than "We can assume...'

      .

      Delete


    8. .

      “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said. “We are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

      .

      Delete


    9. .

      They were corrupt re: Hillary, but they got religion on Trump!

      .

      Delete
    10. .

      For the uninformed, havge is from an ancient, no longer extant Swedish language used during the paleolithic period in certain northern regions of what is now called Sweden, a language that resulted from the comingling of the native population with various nomadic sub-species of unknown lineage, an extended event that has been speculated to have resulted in the current lower IQ's and test scores among today's Swedes.

      I often try to introduce colorful language from the past into my comments for the edification of my fellow bloggers.

      .

      Delete
    11. .

      I ask for proof of a Deep State conspiracy and you offer me an example of Comey's stupidity.

      .

      Delete
  40. Comey, Mueller, Page, Strzok, Rosenstein, et al have been shown to be independent actors carrying out their duties as professionals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Other than Comey, none on the list has been shown to not be doing their jobs as professionals (well, unless you consider Strzok and Page sending personal emails on FBI time).

      .

      Delete
    2. Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, Mueller, Page, Strzok, Rosenstein et-al:

      Professional non-deep staters all!

      Delete


    3. .

      Pure as the wind-driven snow!!!

      .

      Delete
    4. "carrying out their duties as professionals."

      :-)

      :-)

      :-)

      Delete
    5. .

      Clapper and Brennan?

      What have they got to do with he Mueller investigation? Brennan like every other head of the CIA going back decades was an asshole and a liar. Clapper in both the Bush and the Obama administration was an asshole and a liar. Both are guilty of crimes both statutory and moral. But right now they are simply political commentators like most of the other morons involved, Nunes and McCarthy for instance. That doesn't mean they are part of a vast Deep State conspiracy organized by...?...to frame Trump. You guys sound like Hillary Clinton.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      You want a vast Deep State conspiracy?

      You'd do better looking at the one organized by Trump and abetted by toadies like Nunes and Jordon, and the RWM (Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, Gateway Pundit, et al), and the Trumpkins all designed to sabotage the Mueller investigations with conspiracy theories and fake news stories. Now, there is an unholy alliance.

      .

      Delete
  41. .

    Bob's been wetting his panties waiting for this IG report to come out. You would rather speculate rather than wait for the IG and Mueller reports to be completed.

    Nunes completed his 'investigations'. A lot of charges were made. I am still waiting for indictments to be offered and charges laid much less court cases were the charges can be judged. Supposedly, based on the IG findings, McCabe was fired (now there's something political given his role was the only one fast tracked by the IG to be completed before he could retire). I haven't seen the indictments there. But you guys keep up the drumbeat.

    Trump throws out charges of entrapment and 'embedded spies' without proof and you guys go nutz.

    For the past year, Trump and his minions like Nunes and Jordon have been trying every way possible to scuttle the Mueller investigation and you and the other Trumpkins play the role of the useful idiot abetting them.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  42. Feel asleep.

    Woke up and the summit is already over.

    Cancelled.

    Bummer.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The dispute seems to be over whether or not an aide to Dennis Rodman and AG Magoo could be on the main plane.

    Preisent Doald said no. Kim Fatsoo III said yes. The Aides name was Quirk. Finally the seating arrangments for Magoo, Quirk and Rodman became of such great moment the entire trip broke down.

    Whether it can be resurrected at this point is anyone's guess.

    We all hope it can be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Preisent Doald

      Is that Tony Donut's brother?


      .

      Delete
    2. The dispute of all over whether or not some unknown named Quirk, his name of secrecy, was to be allowed to ride on Air Force I, or not.

      The Donald said yes.

      Kim Fatso said no.

      It was a Polish standoff and The Donald caved.

      Delete
    3. .

      Word is Trump was down right enraged that the Norks would actually call Mike Pence a dummy over his Fox interview in which he took pains to remind Kim of the Libyan outcome.

      Sounds to me like the Norks were being kind.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      At one time, Pence was considered the only adult in the administration. Now, well...

      Must be the Trump effect.

      .

      Delete
    5. "NO Quirk, no Doanld' Pompeo messaged to Kim Fatso III.

      "NO Quirk, only Donald" Fatso messaged back.

      And, that is where it stands now.

      Delete
    6. .

      Damn, Bob, are you really asleep? Try and keep up.

      Mike Pence As a 'Political Dummy:' How U.S.-North Korea Talks Reverted to Name-Calling and Nuclear Threats


      Bolton and Pence locked at the hip in their dummyhood.


      .

      Delete
    7. .

      "NO Quirk, no Doanld' Pompeo messaged to Kim Fatso III.

      By the way, are you ok? Perhaps, you should call 911.

      .

      Delete
  44. .

    Peace Conference Commemorative Metal Discounted at White House Gift Shop

    I always thought the idea of the metal was kind of tacky and even a bit presumptuous given the uncertainty of the relationship and the vague agenda. Now, I may buy one as an investment given the discounted price and the fact that its value may go up as an oddity. Sure, it's just a trivia item but there are collectors of the outre (human skulls, shrunken heads, Nazi helmets, etc.) out there who may really want it. Plus, if it doesn't appreciate, I can always give it away as the perfect gag gift.


    'Deal of the day': White House slashes price of North Korea summit coin

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :-)
      Did you study English under Farmer Bob?

      What medal was the coin made of?

      Delete
  45. Whatever happened to simply following a police officer's instructions?

    https://www.today.com/video/bodycam-footage-shows-milwaukee-police-using-taser-on-nba-player-1240893507773

    ReplyDelete
  46. Specifically, the minutes said "a temporary period of inflation modestly above 2 percent would be consistent with the Committee's symmetric inflation objective."

    Though the general tone was that inflation would continue to rise, there was disagreement over how confident the Fed should be after undershooting its target for so long, with some members amenable to letting the prices climb higher.

    All signs continued to point at a tight labor market, with Thursday's data on new applications for U.S. unemployment rising just slightly to 234,000 for the week ended May 19.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mueller caught in a trap of his own making - 5/24/18
    Special counsel Robert Mueller looks likely to face a huge humiliation in court and a massive public relations disaster. It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. More


    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/mueller_caught_in_a_trap_of_his_own_making.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Special counsel Robert Mueller looks likely to face a huge humiliation in court and a massive public relations disaster. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. Unless a Trump-appointed judge bails him out and grants an exception to federal law, trampling on the rights of the defendants he indicted, Mueller will have to go into court to try a case he doesn't seem to think he can win – or else face the humiliation of dropping the charges he brought against 13 Russian entities (some of which did not exist at the time of the alleged crime) with great fanfare.

      Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller News Foundation reports:


      Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked a federal judge Tuesday to reject the four-decade-old speedy trial law in the case against 13 Russians and three Russian companies and has asked for an indefinite delay to the Russian collusion trial.

      It is the second time Mueller tried to delay the trial. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, rejected the earlier request without comment and ordered the case to go forward.

      One of the Russian companies – Concord Management and Consulting – entered the U.S., hired American lawyers, and demanded a speedy trial. The Speedy Trial Act is a 44-year old federal law that dictates that a federal criminal case must begin within 70 days from the date of the indictment.

      If the defendant is demanding a speedy trial, there ought to be a very good reason for denying that right. And Mueller's excuse is – let's be blunt – not merely lame, but due to his own misbehavior.

      The "complexity" of the case warrants excluding the speedy trial law and delaying the trial, Mueller argued in Tuesday's court filing.

      A "district court can, on its own motion or at the request of a party, grant an excludable continuance if 'the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,'" Mueller wrote.

      "This case also warrants a continuance and exclusion of time to accommodate the voluminous discovery at issue and to allow sufficient time for the Court to resolve certain outstanding procedural issues unique to discovery in this case," he continued.

      I am no lawyer, but the problem with this excuse is obvious to even me: if the case is so complex that extra time is required, then why was the indictment brought in the first place? Why did the special counsel rush the indictment when he now confesses that it was too complex to go to trial?


      Delete
    2. Andrew McCarthy, who is a brilliant and distinguished attorney and ex-federal prosecutor, agrees with my less well informed opinion that it is too late to make the complexity excuse. He adds an important note about whose rights would be violated:

      "Speedy trial rights belong to the defendant, and if the defendant pushes for a trial within the 70 days, the government has little cause to complain," McCarthy said. "If the case was too complex, the government had the option of holding off on seeking an indictment until it was ready to proceed to trial. When a prosecutor files an indictment, it is tantamount to saying, 'We are ready to go.'"

      Another gambit is being employed by Team Mueller to attempt to justify a delay:

      ... Mueller informed the court on May 16 his office was prepared to enter two terabytes of Russian social media into the record, thereby flooding the docket with a huge amount of evidence, all of it in Russian. The volume could fill 3,000 CD-ROM discs.

      And McCarthy debunks this move:

      It's "inappropriate for a prosecutor to manufacture complexity and then contend that things are too complex," McCarthy told TheDCNF. "If a prosecutor is disclosing mountains of foreign language materials without an understanding or explanation of their relevance to the case, that is a delaying tactic and an attempt to chew up the defendant's resources."

      The tactic "is apt to make the presiding judge very angry," he added.

      My surmise is that Mueller never expected the Russian defendants even to show up because they are immune from any penalties, being resident in Russia, where an American court verdict could be disregarded with no extradition possible. The indictments, in other words, were for show, to persuade the pubic that his multi-multi-million dollar operation was producing results and going after nefarious actors from Russia.

      Again, being blunt, it looks to me as though Mueller was showboating, using the justice system for propaganda purposes but without an apparent actual case ready to go forward. I am no expert at all on the canons of legal ethics, but this does sound like an abuse of the federal courts if there was no intent to proceed with a prosecution on a timely basis within the requirements of the law. The defendant, Concord Management and Consulting, which retained a top-tier law firm, Reed Smith, for its defense counsel and is pushing for the timely trial to which it is entitled, may well wish to pursue some sort of ethics complaint if Judge Friedrich does not grant Mueller's plea for a delay and Mueller then moves to dismiss charges. That is obviously up to the company and its law firm

      If Judge Friedrich already dismissed an earlier plea for delay without comment, why would he now change his mind?

      It is hard to see how this case will end up as anything but a humiliation in court and a gigantic public relations disaster for Mueller and his merry band of Democratic Party donors.




      Delete


    3. .

      McCarthy don't know Jack Shit!

      .

      Delete
  48. Yea, its true, Wayne and I tried to tutor Quirk for a year but the cold weather gave and being a fair weather kind of guy he left of Santa Clara. He never lasted a month, but Wayne and I tried.


    Wayne did teach Quirk to come to table when the dinner bell was rung, but that was as far as we get get with the student. Finally he wandered off back east somewheres, as all the failed ones do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You shoulda tried giving him metals.

      Delete
    2. We gave him a couple meals.

      He didn't deserve anything more.

      We were glad to see him go.

      He was becoming something of a burden, to be truthful....

      Delete
  49. In its monumental 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that the Constitution allows Congress to require good cause before the president can remove such an officer — in that case, an independent counsel appointed under the statute created by Congress after and in response to Watergate.

    ...

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed not to allow a vote on the bill — the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act — because he believes it’s unnecessary. But some senators, including some of those who voted against it in the Judiciary Committee, have opposed the bill on the ground that it’s unconstitutional, claiming that, per Justice Scalia’s Morrison dissent, the bill interferes with the president’s power to remove subordinates.

    ...

    In fact, there are three different problems with this constitutional objection.

    First, for at least some of these senators, it is quite clearly a pretext — a legal argument that, whether or not they believe it, gives them political cover to oppose alienating Trump.

    Second, even for the true believers, as Professor Jed Shugerman explained last week, there are compelling reasons to conclude that Chief Justice William Rehnquist got it right for the majority in Morrison — and that Justice Scalia was simply wrong even as a matter of original understanding.

    Third, and of most practical importance, there’s no good reason to believe that the current Supreme Court would invalidate the bill were it passed, and lots of good reasons to think that it wouldn’t.


    What the Law Says

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Big Meet seems to have broken down.

    Kim is at fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kim is trying to drive a wedge between S. Korea and USA and China.

      Delete
    2. .

      Kim may be trying but Trump has already done it with his words and actions (and inactions as with the delay in appointing an ambassador for SK).

      The man carries a China shop around with him just so he can destroy it.

      .

      Delete
  51. President Donald Trump's Thursday decision to cancel his planned summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un seems to have blindsided South Korea — and experts say this could benefit North Korea and China.

    ...

    Alexander Vershbow, a fellow at the Atlantic Council and former US ambassador to South Korea, said Trump made a "wise" move.

    "While 'wise' is not a word usually used for President Trump, it was wise to cancel the meeting in Singapore," Vershbow said in a statement.

    ...

    Trump has left the door open for the summit to still occur, and the tone of his letter was relatively diplomatic, but it seems the US will require major concessions and assurances from North Korea to salvage the meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  52. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/The_Chrysler_Building_%285918428133%29.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  53. South Korea was at a loss for words Thursday after President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was scrapping next month’s planned nuclear summit with North Korea.

    “We are attempting to make sense of what, precisely, President Trump means,” South Korean presidential spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom said in a statement.

    ...

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, testifying on Capitol Hill, wouldn’t comment on whether Trump’s letter blindsided the South Koreans.

    ReplyDelete
  54. .

    Spygate

    Yesterday, we had the 'Big Reveal' on 'Spygate' that Trump and his lap dog Nunes have been demanding for weeks.

    Results so far...

    (...crickets...)

    .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      The only thing we have from the GOP members who where in the room? Mitch McConnell said he saw nothing surprising and that he supports the Mueller probe.

      The Dems say the meeting was a nothing burger. There was nothing supporting Trump's conspiracy theory.

      As usual, Mueller says nothing which really must be driving Trump nutz. Well, nutzer.

      So is that the end of it?

      Well, not quite...

      Today, in Trump's usual tweetstorm he takes the conspiracy theory to new levels. 'Hey, everyone knows there was a spy embedded in my campaign for political purposes. The meeting might have fallen flat, but try this. He claims the Dems are arguing that putting an 'informant' IN the Trump campaign is different than putting a 'spy' in the Trump campaign.'


      No, they're not Mr. President. They are arguing that...

      1. There was no one embedded in the Trump campaign to inform, spy, or anything else.

      2. That the words you used, 'embedded' 'spy' were merely chosen to spice up your idiotic conspiracy theory in one more effort to discredit the Mueller campaign.

      3. That you or your flunkies in Congress have provided zero evidence to prove your crazy claims.

      Then Trump double downs with an even stupider conspiracy theory, 'What if the spy was embedded in the campaign long before the Russian investigation began like some Manchurian Candidate looking for his chance to sabotage the Trump campaign?'

      Any sane person would shake their heads and mutter 'cray cray'.

      However, what can we expect...

      1. Trump will continue the idiocy. He is going to play the 'spygate' meme as far as it will take him. Let's face it, Trump has been proven a liar or a nut numerous times before, this is just the latest example, and his numbers among his base keep going up. IMO, that is more a reflection of the mental state of his base than of Trump's baseness.

      2. Within a day or two, one of Trump's flunkies in Congress will try to find some way of expanding on this latest conspiracy theory and demanding formal investigations of it.

      3. Within that same time frame, Dougie and Bobbie will jump out of their clown car and start talking about spies embedded in the Trump campaign prior to the Russian investigation.

      .

      Delete
    2. See:
      Doug Thu May 24, 08:25:00 PM EDT

      Delete
    3. They had paid spies that were not embedded: No big deal according to Quirk.

      Delete
    4. James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence under President Barack Obama, said that Mr. Trump is trying to distort standard investigatory practices to insinuate wrongdoing.

      “I didn’t know about this informant,” said Mr. Clapper, whose memoir, “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence,” will be published Tuesday. “No one in the White House knew. Certainly the president didn’t know. This is a routine thing that goes on all the time. We’re making a huge mountain out of a molehill. The purpose was to understand what the Russians were doing.”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/trump-mueller-strategy-russia-inquiry.html

      Delete
    5. F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html

      Delete
    6. Quirk thinks there should be the death penalty for calling an informant a spy.

      Delete
    7. (In league with Crapper.)

      Delete
    8. .

      They had paid spies that were not embedded: No big deal according to Quirk.

      Exactly. It's SOP with every police force in the country. Even those anonymous tip lines they set up fall into the same description.

      The only reason you are upset with it is Trump and his minions are upset about it and have called it a big scandal. Try thinking for yourself. Calling this a crime or even scandalous is absurd.

      .

      Delete
    9. .

      Quirk thinks there should be the death penalty for calling an informant a spy.

      Pure nonsense (as usual). It's not a crime, its just a calculated attempt to wave a red flag in front of the base. It's vintage Trump and don't expect him to give up the 'spy gate' charge any time soon.

      The only thing that is criminal is the felony stupid response of you and the other Trumpkins who buy into the bullshit he hands you daily.

      .

      Delete
    10. "Exactly. It's SOP with every police force in the country. "

      ===

      Moron:

      Watergate was a big deal.

      GOVERNMENT doing it, no big deal.

      To you.

      Delete


    11. .

      Using the IRS against politcal opponents was also no big deal.

      .

      Delete


    12. .

      Unmasking hundreds of political opponents also no big deal.

      .

      Delete
    13. .

      Watergate was a big deal.

      GOVERNMENT doing it, no big deal.



      What's wrong with you, Doug.

      With Watergate, it wasn't government agencies that committed the crime. It was five members of CREEP, would be burglars from Nixon's reelection committee, the gan who couldn't shoot straight.

      The only thing that Watergate could vaguely be compared to the current situation was that the president was found to be lying and was impeached on charges of abuse of presidential powers and obstruction of justice.

      .

      Delete
    14. "With Watergate, it wasn't government agencies that committed the crime."

      ===

      Exactly! In Quirkworld, it's fine to use the FBI, DOJ, etc to do THE SAME THING.

      Delete
    15. .

      Christ, Doug, think.

      Watergate involved a burglary, a crime, it that case a felony.

      There was NO CRIME involved with the use of an outside informant by the FBI.

      It wasn't THE SAME THING at all. Not even close.


      .

      Delete
    16. Yeah they were attempting to take info from the DNC.

      Spying on Trump was to protect us all from the Ruskies.

      In Quirk/Clapper World.

      Delete
    17. Why are you hyperventilating?

      Delete
  55. .

    Using the IRS against political opponents was also no big deal.

    What does that have to do with the situation we are talking about? Now you are just flailing. Throwing out straw men because you have nothing else.

    I was one of the biggest critics of those abuse and the people involved right up to Obama but it has zip to do with this matter.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has to do with the same lawlessness exhibited throughout the Obama admin.

      Delete
  56. .

    Unmasking hundreds of political opponents also no big deal.

    Rice's actions were investigated for this and she wasn't found guilty of anything. She was the NSA and there was no way of proving it wasn't part of her job. Another one of Trump's conspiracy theories you bought into.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Rice's actions were investigated for this and she wasn't found guilty of anything."

      ===

      Hillary was also "investigated" and not found guilty.

      Ain't equal justice for all a great thing?

      (Petraeus disagrees.)

      Delete
    2. The guys with clubs at the voting booths were not guilty of anything:

      They weren't even tried.

      Being a Democrat provides safety, a Black Thug Democrat: Total immunity.

      Like Obama.

      Delete
    3. Like Rice, Lynch, Holder, etc.

      Delete
    4. .

      You forgot OJ.

      So you are saying...what? That the current Mueller investigation should be shut down, that current indictments should be dropped, tand to all those guys who have pleaded guilty to crimes the FBI should just say "Never Mind", that we should just ignore any crimes that may have been committed on the basis that others have gotten away with shit before?

      Is that what you are saying, Doug?

      Or, are you simply stamping your little foot and venting?


      .

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, what Manafort did a decade ago definitely implicates the Trump team to have been in collusion with Russia.

      Delete
    7. .

      What exactly are you suggesting?

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      So you are suggesting what? That any crimes Manafort may have committed be ignored?

      .

      Delete
    9. I'm suggesting what I said.

      Delete
    10. .

      Yeah, what Manafort did a decade ago definitely implicates the Trump team to have been in collusion with Russia.

      At this point, no one has said it has. I haven't suggested Trump did anything (other than act as an ass). And Mueller hasn't said a word.

      Yet, you sit here hyperventilating. Why is that?

      .

      Delete
    11. Spying on political opponents, setting up and entrapping opponents, witholding evidence, hiring Hillary donors to "investigate" Trump, all that and more I find disturbing.

      You don't.

      Delete
    12. .

      Spying on pollical opponents,

      Not sure who you are talking about. If...

      1. FBI My response is your nutz. Trump is not the FBI or the DOJ's political opponent. At least, not back then.

      2. Clinton Campaign My question is what is the difference between Fusion GPS and Cambridge Analytica again?

      setting up and entrapping opponents,

      Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. Not sure who you are talking about. I haven't seen any evidence of it. If someone is saying they were the victim of entrapment they will at minimum have right to prove that if they are charged.

      witholding evidence,

      I assume you are talking the warrant for Page. Not sure on this one. But then neither are you. You are going by what you have been told by 'Inspector' Nunes. Neither of us know what was in the unredacted warrant application. We don't know if the references to the dossier spoke of the whole dossier or just individual parts that we know were true. Until the actual unredacted documents are released (something Trump can order any time) we won't know for sure. You will continue to hold your opinion and I will remain unconvinced.

      hiring Hillary donors to "investigate" Trump

      Nonsense. Mueller is restricted by law from questioning anyone he plans on hiring about their political affiliations or opinions. When he found out the extent of the Page/Strzok antipathy for Trump he moved them out.

      all that and more I find disturbing

      Well, at least, you finally admit you are disturbed.

      (Sorry, couldn't help it on the last one. :o)

      .

      Delete
    13. "Nonsense. Mueller is restricted by law from questioning anyone he plans on hiring about their political affiliations or opinions."

      :-)
      Well then it obviously follows that he was completely in the dark about everything all of us out here in the hinterlands know about his Hillary tag team.

      Poor guy.

      Delete
  57. What's wrong with you, Quirk?

    (Rhetorical: Everyone knows you have MSM on the "brain.")

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ah, finally able to get something of a grip about what's going on -
    Share Share | Twitter
    | Facebook
    | 163 Comments | Print | Email
    May 25, 2018
    Trump cracks his whip: Now North Korea wants to talk
    By Thomas Lifson


    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/trump_cracks_his_whip_now_north_korea_wants_to_talk.html#ixzz5Ga3Bcurd
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rosenstein recommended Mueller to be Comey's replacement, Trump declined, less than 24 hours later he appoints him special counsel!
    ..Strzok wrote Papadopoulos memo...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueHnSh-JBQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Rosenstein recommended Mueller to be Comey's replacement, Trump declined, less than 24 hours later he appoints him special counsel!

      So there you have it, timing is everything. You just have to catch Trump during one of his manic phases and you just might be able to convince him to do the right thing. Never give up no matter the frustration.


      ..Strzok wrote Papadopoulos memo...


      Strzok helped convince Comey to give his letter to Congress 11 days before the election indicating the Clinton investigation had been reopened as a result of the Weiner case.


      .

      Delete
    2. .

      A February 2018 comprehensive review by The Wall Street Journal of Strzok's messages showed that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump".[13]


      Wiki


      .

      Delete
    3. .

      The Kool-Aid drinking Trumpkins at this site always say b.s. when presented with something Trump disagrees with. The problem, of course, is that they are invariably wrong in their denials.

      No doubt they believed Trump when he said an article the NYT published was fake news, that it didn't happen, that the anonymous source they quoted didn't exist, that they made it up. This referred to an article that said a senior White House official indicated that even if the US/NK meeting is agreed to again it won't happen on June 12 as there is not enough time to complete the arrangements.

      The problem, however, is that the senior White House official provided that quote in front of a room full of reporters. Now, you could say Trump was unaware of this at the time he criticized the Times article; however, it doesn't matter whether Trump knew his statement was wrong or not. The truth means nothing to the man, he is a pathological liar. This is his MO. A normal person might apologize when it's obvious he was wrong. Don't expect it from Trump. He is an abnormal person who lacks the ability to admit when he is wrong.

      There was another quote from a different White House official that Trump also declared was fake news. In it the guy said that 'Trump said he attacks the media just to discredit it.' And why should he stop. This pattern seems to work for him as his approval numbers have been going up.

      If we ignore the morality, I can't blame Trump for doing something that works. I blame the useful idiots who accept his obviously false statements, a sad commentary on half the country.

      .

      Delete
  60. Not defending Harry Weinstein, but, give me a break -a rape charge from TWENTY YEARS AGO ?



    29 YEARS AGO ?


    Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  61. If you get raped you go to the hospital, do the rape kit, call the cops, that evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There used to be statutes of limitations on rape charges.

      Have those all vanished from our society ?

      Delete
  62. Trump Wins? Poll Shows Majority Believe “Animals” A Fair Description Of MS-13
    ED MORRISSEYPosted at 2:41 pm on May 25, 2018


    How well have the efforts by Democrats and the media to scold Donald Trump over his use of the word “animals” succeeded when describing the murderous gang MS-13? About as well as one would expect outside of their bubble. A new poll from Harvard and Harris shows that a solid majority believe that “animals” is indeed a fair description for gangs that rape, kill, and butcher their victims, and aren’t all that concerned over “dehumanizing” them either:

    SEE ALSO: Report: FBI agent who interviewed Flynn prepared to testify he appeared forthcoming

    A majority of Americans in a new poll believe it’s fair to characterize members of the MS-13 gang as “animals,” according to the survey taken after President Trump faced controversy for remarks during an immigration meeting.

    Fifty-six percent of American adults in the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll said referring to members of the gang as “animals” is fair, compared to 44 percent who said the characterization was unfair.

    A slimmer majority, 52 percent, added that comments that “dehumanize” members of MS-13 are acceptable.

    The Hill doesn’t provide any demographics on this question, but it’s safe to say that a 56/44 split probably includes a significant number of independents and even Democrats. Harvard/Harris will release the data sometime next week, but the political demos seem in pretty good balance overall, with a D/R/I of 37/32/29.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/25/trump-wins-poll-shows-majority-believe-animals-fair-description-ms-13/

    ReplyDelete
  63. JIHAD WATCH

    Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

    Video from UK: Tommy Robinson arrested for live-streaming outside trial of Muslim rape gang

    MAY 25, 2018 10:44 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER
    84 COMMENTS


    As I said last night, Britain is now a police state, and a Sharia-compliant one at that. As you can see from this video, Tommy Robinson was standing outside the courthouse, discussing Britain’s Muslim rape gang crisis. Reporters stand outside courtrooms all the time and make videos; Tommy wasn’t doing anything that they don’t do. But he was arrested for “breaching the peace,” which is apparently British police code for “offending Islam.”

    Britain is, as we all know, finished. This video and the videos I posted last night ought to shock the world and lead to an international denunciation of Britain’s slide into totalitarianism, and to calls for it to respect the human rights of all its citizens, not just Muslims. But it won’t. Tommy is just an “Islamophobe,” and so am I, and such people have no rights that the political and media elites feel bound to respect.

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/video-from-uk-tommy-robinson-arrested-for-live-streaming-outside-trial-of-muslim-rape-gang

    ReplyDelete

  64. ** Canada: NDP Muslim candidate caught praising Hitler online -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153451039&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    Canada has an "anti-Islamophobia" motion that was passed by Parliament, M-103. But
    it does not, of course, have any motion against Islamic Jew-hatred, even as it is
    openly espoused by Muslim politicians such as Tasleem Riaz.

    ** Canada: Bearded man attacks teens with knife, slashes one in the neck, the other
    in the chest -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153448323&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    “He is described as white, five feet eight inches tall, average build, with a full
    beard and a buzz-cut hair style. He was wearing a white T-shirt and black pants.”
    Look at that picture: that's no buzz cut. But it does look as if it could be someone
    out to prove his devotion to Allah...

    ** Capitol Police “Accidentally” Gave Treasure Trove of Evidence To Muslim Defense
    Attorney - https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153443773&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    Accidentally? Color me skeptical. The Democrats are criminal, treasonous and sleazy.
    They gave this jihadi unfettered access to national security secrets.

    ** Anti-immigration Sweden Democrats poll record high ahead of September election -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153443775&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    Sweden’s top three parties are running almost level four months ahead of a general
    election, with the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats polling a record 20 percent.

    ** WATCH VIDEO: “Palestinian” thugs heckle Nikki Haley at University of Houston with
    lies about Gaza -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153441533&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    More fascist thuggery in our nation's universities.

    ** Murder Surges 44 Percent in Khan's London Amidst 'Troubling' Rise in Serious
    Crime - https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153439671&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    London's Muslim mayor can now lay claim to the fact that the city's murder rate has
    surged 44 percent under his leadership.

    ** Hamas-CAIR Official Calls on US Government to Investigate American Jews Who Join
    IDF - https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153438369&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    A top official at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said last month
    that the US government’s Countering Violent Extremism program should investigate
    young American Jews who enlist in the Israel Defense Forces.

    ** Two men blow up IED inside Indian restaurant in Canada, multiple injuries -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153438371&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    Police have released a photo of two suspects who detonated an explosive device in a
    restaurant in Mississauga, a city in the Canadian province of Ontario. At least 15
    people have been injured.

    ** Toronto School Removes Jewish Heritage Month Banner -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153436491&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    Administrators at a school in Toronto decided to pull down a flag representing
    Jewish Heritage Month because -- get this -- they found it too "controversial"
    because it looked too much like the Israeli banner.

    ** Robert DeNiro Bans Trump From His Restaurants -
    https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=153435963&f=26412&c=6107795&u=49293618

    Hollywood hasn't been conservative in years. But Robert DeNiro has taken anti-Donald
    Trumpism to a new level -- to a new low level -- and outright banned the president
    from his restaurants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Canada is all fucked up too.

      No freedom of speech.

      A total IDIOT as Prime Minister.

      Delete
  65. If you haven't figured it out yet, nothing is coming from these Korea talks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We might get a free lobster dinner out of it, if we are lucky.

      Delete

  66. Get Kenyatta -

    May 26, 2018

    Jarrett and Obama are Behind Spygate

    By Daniel John Sobieski

    Unless we assume the FBI went completely rogue, it is inconceivable that the deployments of personnel to spy on the Trump campaign and make provocative contact with its lesser members could have occurred without the full knowledge and control of the occupants of the Oval Office.

    Obama may claim a scandal-free administration, but after Fast and Furious, the targeting of the Tea Party by the IRS, the Benghazi cover-up, Hillary's emails, to name a few, Spygate is just the latest. I use the plural "occupants" because while Barack Hussein Obama may have been nominally the president of the United States, at the heart of every one of these scandals and virtually every administration move was Valerie Jarrett, who arguably could be considered our first female president.


    Jarrett, born in Iran to American parents, has been with the Obamas since her days as deputy chief of staff in the office of Chicago mayor Richard Daley, the younger. She hired Michelle Obama, then Michelle Robinson, to fill an opening in the mayor's office. As WikiLeaks describes the beginning of a long relationship (citations omitted):..................




    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/jarrett_and_obama_are_behind_spygate.html#ixzz5Gf1pNRFF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. .

      Watergate involved a BURGLARY, a CRIME, in that case a FELONY!

      This ain't shit.

      .

      Delete
    2. Quirk will explain the vast difference between stealing secrets and,
      ...stealing secrets.

      Delete
    3. .

      Quirk doesn't have to explain since the situation doesn't exist other than in the addled minds of the Trumpkins. Trump says white is black and the his Stepford Wives here at the bar chant "Black".

      #Sad,So Sad

      .

      Delete
  67. We'll see what happens.

    If it happens, it happens.

    If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.

    We'll see what happens, or, doesn't happen.

    We're gonna see what happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatda you think is gonna happen ?

      Anything ?

      Delete
    2. Maybe nothing will happen.

      Delete
    3. Nothing did happen in the Obama years:

      No one was found guilty.

      Delete
    4. ...especially in those hammered phone bits.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. .

      The Tao of the Twins

      We'll see what happens.

      Or, we can just continue to piss and moan, whine and bitch, hyperventilate and make up conspiracy theories and fake news.

      Guess we'll just have to wait for Trump and his echo chamber in the RWM to give us our daily talking points. So much nicer that way. We're relieved of the burden of actually thinking for ourselves. Thinking hurts. Ouch.

      .

      Delete
  68. I actually think the Koreas will get it together.

    I don't have any reason for thinking that but that is not stopping me.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hillary has decided she doesn't much like the Electoral College.

    Wants it eliminated.

    It doesn't suit her outlook.

    Wants New York and California to run the country.

    I'd want to secede, if that were the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wouldn't suit my outlook.

      Delete
    2. .

      The Older Twin chants...

      "Well, unless Trump tells me my outlook is something different."

      .

      Delete
    3. Whine Man Quirk loves his life in the ant heap.

      Delete
  70. .

    Trump's 'Art of the Deal': Fuss and fume and threaten and then give away the store.

    Trump appears to confirm deal on Chinese firm ZTE

    Trump berates China on trade, demands $ hundreds of billions in trade adjustments. China offers Trump some dim sum, a few compliments to stroke his ego, then promises to do better in the future (no specifics) and Trump despite the opinions of the Commerce department, his allies in Congress, and the intelligence agencies says we will work with ZTE so as to 'save all of those Chinese jobs'. He then brags about what a great job he has done, greatest job ever, and repeats 'make America great again'. And the Trumpkins chant 'Great job. Great job. Great job...'

    .

    ReplyDelete
  71. .

    US lost 1500 immigrant children but says it is no 'Legally responsible'.


    The federal government has placed thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children in the homes of sponsors, but last year it couldn’t account for nearly 1,500 of them.

    Steven Wagner, a top official with the Department of Health and Human Services, disclosed the number to a Senate subcommittee last month while discussing the state of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that oversees the care of unaccompanied immigrant children.

    Wagner is the acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. ORR is a program of the Administration for Children and Families.
    CNN reported earlier this month that, in his testimony, Wagner said during the last three months of 2017, the ORR lost track of nearly 1,500 immigrant children it had placed in the homes of sponsors.

    Wagner’s statement has attracted more attention amid reports that immigrant children are being separated from their parents at the US border.

    Wagner said the Department of Homeland Security referred more than 40,000 immigrant children to the ORR during the 2017 fiscal year.

    After a stay in an ORR shelter, the majority of children are sent to live with sponsors who have close ties to the children — typically a parent or close relative, Wagner said, though some end up living with “other-than-close relatives or non-relatives.”

    Between October and December 2017, Wagner told the subcommittee, the ORR reached out to 7,635 unaccompanied children to check on them. But the ORR “was unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 children,” Wagner testified. An additional 28 had run away...


    So while the headline says '1500 children lost' the fact is based on the statistics, ORR has lost 20% of the thousands of children they have separated from the parents.

    Trump brags about the separation policy under the belief that is will resound positively with his base, a sad situation regardless of the truth, bad that he thinks so poorly of his base and even worse if his beliefs are true.

    .

    ReplyDelete