“Did you lie then, or are you lying now”?
The controversy surrounding the Chumph’s classless sympathy calls has gone off the rails.
The real question here is what were those Soldiers doing on the Niger Border, and how exactly did a group of highly-trained, well equipped 12 man team of Green Berets get outgunned by a ragtag group of whackjobs? Where was their support? I mean, usually when these guys are sent out into dangerous areas there are some drones, or attack helicopters nearby to rain holy hell on anyone attacking them.
Last is the question of why did it take 48 hours to recover the body of Sgt. La David Johnson?
Was he captured alive by the ISIS terrorists?
Lot of real questions here having nothing to do with the Chumph’s racist cruelty.
Here is General John Kelly. Trying to be a good soldier, he is trying to lie the Chumph out of trouble.
Here is Congresswoman Frederica Wilson’s response –
This is pretty good analysis –
This one is far out enough out on the edge to greet with some skepticism. If true, confirmation should be available in a few days.
The problem is, that between the Chumph’s collusion with the Russians, illegal and criminal business dealings, and unconstitutional actions…
It is impossible at this point to tell which crime he’s being charged with.
Was this the real reason for the Comey firing?
Blogger and fierce critic of President Donald Trump Louise Mensch and former Clinton White House official Claude Taylor are both saying that independent sources have separately informed them that a sealed indictment has been granted against the president.
“Separate sources with links to the intelligence and justice communities have stated that a sealed indictment has been granted against Donald Trump,” wrote Mensch and Taylor at the Patribotics blog.
They continued, “While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.”
Mensch is known as something of a polemicist — some dismiss her as a crackpot conspiracy theorist — and yet, as GOP strategist and fellow Trump critic Rick Wilson pointed out on Twitter, she has been right on target with certain key findings in the secretive murk around Trump and investigations into his connections to Russia’s mafia underworld.
A Dutch TV documentary shed light this week on some of Trump’s connections to Russia’s lawless elite and explained how the intercepted communications between Trump campaign officials and Russian organized crime figures could have been discovered as part of a money-laundering and organized crime case.
Seems Putin’s Bitch doesn’t want to talk to the press anymore…
Guess the News folks are feeling that “You Don’t See Me”…
Amazing what no longer being required to have his nose up Scalia’s derriere has done for the man. He can actually take a breath and say something…
For 10 years, Justice Clarence Thomas has sat on the bench of the Supreme Court through innumerable oral arguments without asking a single question. That all changed today.
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Voisine v. United States, a complex and arcane case involving domestic violence and gun ownership. The case initially seemed to revolve around a technical question of criminal intent. Stephen Voisine was convicted of “intentionally, knowingly, orrecklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact” to his girlfriend following a domestic dispute. As a result, he was stripped of his ability to own a gun, because United States federal law indefinitely bars individuals convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from owning firearms. Voisine now argues that “recklessly” causing violence—as opposed to knowingly or intentionally—shouldn’t disqualify him from possessing a gun under federal law.
Arguments were somewhat dry until the last few minutes, when Ilana H. Eisenstein, an assistant to the solicitor general representing the federal government, was preparing to finish up and take her seat. Just before she left the lectern, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke up, asking his very first question from the bench in a decade. The entire court perked up. Everyone shifted forward in their seats, and there was a look of shock on many spectators’ faces. We in the press section nearly fell out of our seats, though the other justices kept admirably cool, with only Chief Justice John Roberts swiveling his head in evident surprise.
Thomas noted that a conviction under the federal statute in question “suspends a constitutional right”—the right of individuals to own guns, as established in 2008’s decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. The government argues, Thomas explained, that “recklessness” in using physical force against an intimate partner is “sufficient to trigger a misdemeanor violation that results in the suspension of what is at least as of now still a constitutional right.” (Thomas appeared to be extremely aware that Hellerwas a 5–4 decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, which could be on the chopping block if the balance of the court shifts to the left.)
The justice, speaking calmly but forcefully, then pointed out that under the federal law, a domestic abuser doesn’t actually have to use a gun against his partner to lose his gun rights. He need only commit some form of domestic abuse, with a firearm or without it. Thomas struck a tone of puzzlement with a tinge of irritation. “Therefore,” he said, “a constitutional right is suspended—even if [the domestic violence] is unrelated to the possession of a gun?”
Eisenstein retorted that individuals who have previously battered spouses have an exponentially higher risk of injuring their spouse with a firearm in the future. But Thomas dug in, asking whether any other law indefinitely suspended an individual’s constitutional rights for recklessly committing a crime. What if “a publisher is reckless about the use of children in what could be indecent displays?” he asked. Could the government “suspend this publisher’s right to ever publish again?” Is suspending First Amendment rights substantively different from suspending Second Amendment rights?
At that point, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer jumped in to help Eisenstein. (Kennedy joined Heller but isn’t a Second Amendment absolutist like Thomas; Breyer dissented from Heller.) Kennedy mentioned laws that indefinitely regulate sex offenders’ liberty, though it was a weak example, because those laws do not suspend any fundamental rights absolutely and indefinitely. Breyer veered away from Thomas’ question, noting that Voisine wasn’t directly arguing that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights. (He had argued that earlier, actually, but the Supreme Court refused to consider that question when it agreed to hear the case.) Instead, Voisine pushed the doctrine of “constitutional avoidance”—essentially arguing that the federal law might infringe upon his right to bear arms, and so the court should rule for him on other grounds to avoid having to decide that vastly more monumental question.
Jorge Ramos is a well known, respected journalist who is an anchor for Univision. Univision is the largest Spanish Language Cable station in the United States, reaching nearly 50 million Hispanic listeners in the US and overseas.
Jorge was asking Trump about his immigration policies…That wan’t good for the Donald.
Hispanic Journalist Kicked Out by Trump
Journalist Jorge Ramos was kicked out of an Iowa press conference Tuesday while trying to ask Donald Trump a question. Trump yelled “Go back to Univision” while refusing to take a question from Ramos. He was later allowed back in to the press conference, at which point heasked Trump how he would deport 11 million people to which Trump responded: “Very humanely.” “Do you know how many Hispanics work for me? Thousands,” Trump said later in the exchange. “You know how many Hispanics have worked for me over the years? Tens of thousands.” Ramos later said, “My job was purely journalistc. My job is to ask questions.”
After protests by other journalists in attendance, Mr Ramos was let back in to ask questions… What ensued was a donnybrook.