All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

[Tero]

Graham still thinks there is no reason to impeach. Trump would play the "I knew nothing" card so it would never be easy:

Her job is very much at risk,” the South Carolina Republican told “Fox News Sunday.” “Nancy Pelosi is riding a bucking, wild bronco called the Democratic caucus.”

He noted that 70 percent of the Democratic base backs beginning impeachment hearings against Trump.

“She knows that impeachment would be political suicide because there’s no reason to impeach the president. So she’s trying to keep the party intact. If she goes down the impeachment road, Republicans take back the House, we keep the Senate, President Trump gets reelected,” Graham said.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/26/graham-po ... trump/amp/

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEA ... id=US%3Aen

[Tero]

The 40% talking

[JimC]

Or someone being deliberately sarcastic...

[Tero]

Could be. There is a TrumpTrain that does satire.

[Tero]

It's not possible to uncover all the deep seated corruption in the FBI in 4 yrs. Trump will need another 4.

[Brian Peacock]

So liberal!
...

So Liberal. Liberalism holds that exceptions to civil rights are acceptable when it doesn't find people acceptable.

Being an immigrant, black, LGBTQ, female, or left-wing etc is a moral matter for the ardent Liberalist who founds their ideology on the un/acceptability of the individual as being of supreme importance.

[Tero]

[Tero]

trump sumo.jpg (33.06 KiB) Viewed 1966 times

[Tero]

Twitter passes FB for spreading fake news. Not only that, the fake news gets ad dollars. So not giving the link.

[Tero]

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday forced Senator Lindsey Graham to watch a 1998 clip of himself talking about the dangers of ignoring subpoenas from Congress during an era when he was leading the impeachment effort against former President Bill Clinton.

During Graham’s appearance on Fox News Sunday earlier today, Wallace challenged the Republican senator on his past comments about impeachment, which appears to contradict his current stance on calls by Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump.

"You call all of what’s going on in Washington a political circus, but you took a different view back when you were leading the impeachment effort against Clinton back in the late '90s. At that time, you said that any president, and you talked specifically about Clinton and Richard Nixon, who defied Congress when it came to subpoenas was in danger of impeachment,” Wallace said, before airing an old clip of Graham’s comments made in Capitol Hill.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The ham-handed 'strategy' by the Trump administration to block any and all attempts by Congress to fulfill its duty of oversight on the executive branch is resulting in swift rulings against it in federal courts.

'Why Trump’s Stonewalling Legal Strategy Will Keep Failing'

In the space of three days this week, two federal judges ruled decisively in favor of Congress’ right to subpoena President Donald Trump’s personal financial and business records. The speed of the decisions—unusual in complex federal litigation—demonstrates a significant flaw in the administration’s “fight all the subpoenas” strategy. More importantly, it suggests that Trump’s strategy of categorically fighting all congressional subpoenas will undermine his ability to stonewall Congress in subsequent cases.

Already, one of the rulings has been appealed by the Trump administration, and a three-judge panel is scheduled to hear the case in July. In the meantime, however, we are witnessing profound legal decisions in defense of congressional power. If Trump’s stonewalling strategy was intended to run out the clock by forcing Democrats into interminable court fights, it appears so far to be having the exact opposite effect—almost like a little league game that gets called early because one team is scoring too many unanswered runs.

On Monday, federal Judge Amit Mehta issued a sweeping decision rejecting Trump’s personal challenge to a House Oversight Committee subpoena of his financial records from an accounting firm he has used. The main argument Trump advanced was that there was no legislative purpose for the subpoena.

Mehta made quick work of that argument, noting that courts have long held that they must presume Congress is acting to legislate. But Trump’s argument went further, claiming that Congress is engaging in “law enforcement” and that corrupt behavior by the president is not a “proper subject of investigation.” Mehta cited Watergate as an obvious rebuttal.

Trump’s argument is doomed to fail in the courts because the Constitution gives the House the “full power of impeachment” and it could not exercise that authority without investigating presidential wrongdoing. Mehta found that it is “simply not fathomable” that “a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”

...

Trump has appointed hundreds of federal judges, many of whom undoubtedly share his expansive view of executive power. One of his appointees, Neomi Rao, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which will hear arguments about the Mehta ruling. But Trump has made it difficult for judges to show him the deference that courts might otherwise show the president.

For that reason, a savvy litigator would not roll the dice with the risky legal strategy Trump has advanced. A more sophisticated approach would be to make limited accommodations to Congress and advance very fact-specific objections to congressional subpoenas that would require a court to engage in a time-consuming inquiry to parse through. Trump’s current strategy lacks that sophistication.

As a result, his strategy is not only generating adverse results quickly, but it could very well convince a court that he is acting in bad faith. If that happens, the House could get the courts to do what it is ill-equipped to do itself: enforce compliance with congressional subpoenas. That could get congressional investigations, or even an impeachment inquiry, off the ground.

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/AtMikeA/status/1133055909305962496

https://twitter.com/SpanbergerVA07/stat ... 9018357760

@SpanbergerVA07
Follow Follow @SpanbergerVA07
More Abigail Spanberger Retweeted NYT Politics
It’s a subpoena, not an invitation.

Complying with a Congressional subpoena is not an “existential question”, it’s the law.Abigail Spanberger added,

NYT Politics
‏
Verified account

@nytpolitics
May 24
Hope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump’s White House staff, is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena https://nyti.ms/2I329XZ

[Tero]

all hat and no cattle

After all, he has never had any interest in actually running things and when he did he often ran them into the ground (count the bankruptcies, and now the debacle of US immigration policy). He is the CEO who is averse to managing, the deal-maker extraordinaire who comes away from the negotiating table empty-handed, having offended lifelong allies to the delight of our adversaries; he is the wizard investor who is said to have lost more money over a decade than practically any other American. His competence rests exclusively on his own testimonials. In Texas they call that "all hat and no cattle."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/27/opinions ... index.html

[L'Emmerdeur]

Thanks, Obama!

'AP FACT CHECK: Trump takes credit for Obama’s gains for vets'

Boastful on the occasion of Memorial Day, President Donald Trump and his Veterans Affairs secretary are claiming full credit for health care improvements that were underway before they took office.

Trump said he passed a private-sector health care program, Veterans Choice, after failed attempts by past presidents for the last “45 years.” That’s not true. The Choice program, which allows veterans to see doctors outside the government-run VA system at taxpayer expense, was first passed in 2014 under President Barack Obama.

Trump’s VA secretary, Robert Wilkie, also is distorting the facts. Faulting previous “bad leadership” at VA, Wilkie suggested it was his own efforts that improved waiting times at VA medical centers and brought new offerings of same-day mental health service. The problem: The study cited by Wilkie on wait times covers the period from 2014 to 2017, before Wilkie took the helm as VA secretary. Same-day mental health services at VA were started during the Obama administration under Wilkie’s predecessor, David Shulkin.

The half-truths and exaggerations came in a week when selective accounting was a norm in Trump’s rhetoric, extending into his trip to Japan , where he inflated the drop in the U.S. unemployment rate for women.

A week? As if his rhetorical norm hasn't been lying and claiming credit for other's accomplishments all along ?