We need to talk about Donald – the Nightmare continues

[Animavore]

President Snowflake - A guy who once made it clear he never apologises - wants an apology.






I'm sorry you were born.

[Brian Peacock]

Someone should ask him which of the stories were incorrect.

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

On the same note.

[Animavore]

[Tero]

Sessions' Russian meetings still a mystery
Rachel Maddow explains what is still unknown about Attorney General Jeff Sessions' meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and Sessions' violation of his own recusal from matters dealing with Russia or the 2016 campaign.
senators in the Armed Services committee, other than Sessions, did not meet with Russians
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

[Brian Peacock]

Congressional Democrats to file emoluments lawsuit against Trump.

... Legal scholars consulted by the congressional plaintiffs said their complaint is distinctive because of the special standing granted to Congress.

“The Framers of our Constitution gave members of Congress the responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign corruption by determining which benefits the president can and cannot receive from a foreign state,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the incoming dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley.

“When the president refuses to reveal which benefits he is receiving — much less obtain congressional consent before accepting them — he robs these members of their ability to perform their constitutional role,” Chemerinsky said. “Congressional lawmakers . . . have a duty to preserve the constitutional order in the only way they can: by asking the courts to make the President obey the law.”

Other legal scholars were skeptical, particularly since the lawsuit was filed only by Democrats, the minority party in both houses of Congress.

“Just because they can’t convince their peers doesn’t mean you can go to court to get what you want,” said Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa.

Generally, a lawmaker can sue if he or she has suffered individual injury, Grewal said. In addition, Congress can sue as a body, as has happened in the past, such as with the lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul.

But a case like this is problematic, he said,

“Because this is individual legislators who don’t have any individual injuries, it will be hard for them to get standing,” he said.

However, Norman Eisen who served as a co-counsel in the other two emoluments-clause lawsuits, said he thought “the congressional plaintiffs in this case do have proper” standing to sue. He pointed out that in the lawsuit filed on behalf of Trump competitors, the Justice Department argued that Congress had special capacity to deal with questions related to emoluments. ...

[pErvinalia]

Robert Reich reckons this is the most promising way to bring Trump down.

[Brian Peacock]

Even if it goes nowhere it'll at least raise the profile of the basic issue - the president profiteering from the presidency while in office. Really Congress as a body should be addressing this matter, and in not doing so I think Congress republicans will be opening themselves up for some criticism as a case can be made that testing this in law is the property way to determine the actuality of the matter and lay the issue to rest, one way or the other. Similarly with the president's tax affairs - if there's nothing untoward then full disclosure, as every recent president has done, is a way to render the matter a non-issue.

If people think that it's OK for a president to profiteer from office, or that foreign governments should be allowed to enrich the president, then that's OK too - it just means that the nature of the presidency becomes a little more oriented towards the wealthy (and which some might argue just makes what already goes on a little more transparent). Either way, if presidential profiteering is OK, then a full disclosure of the president's financial dealings could also go some way to allaying peoples fears of undue influence - 'Sure the president draws an income from this-or-that nation, but the president's actions show that it hasn't influenced decisions or policy' - and similarly if if presidential profiteering is not OK.

Of course, some may argue that being as previous presidents have profited from the presidency while in office, then it's only fair or right that the current one can and should - but this would be a bogus avoidance of the issue, which is: If presidents are to profit personally from the office Congress have to approve it.

[Brian Peacock]

Trump thinks the secret law to replace ACA is 'mean' and a 'sonofabitch'....

... For weeks, since the House passed legislation to dismantle major pieces of the Affordable Care Act, a coterie of Republican senators – initially, an all-male group – have met privately to hammer out their version of a healthcare overhaul plan.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump invited 15 Republican senators to a luncheon at the White House to discuss their progress on the healthcare bill.

During the meeting, Trump told the senators that he believed the House plan was “mean” and urged them to craft one that is “more generous”, according to the Associated Press.

CNN reported that Trump also called the bill “cold-hearted” and a “son of abitch”.

The president’s critique is a sharp departure from his position only last month, when he lauded the bill as “incredibly well crafted” in a ceremony at the White House rose garden to mark its passing the House...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... e-care-act

[pErvinalia]

Fuck he's random.

[JimC]

Is he taking his meds?

[Tero]

China is now looking to California – not Trump – to help lead the fight against climate change
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... story.html

[Animavore]

The Senate has voted for sanctions on Russia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40278569


Tillerson is whining. Saying not to be hasty and to allow for open dialogue. I wonder why that is? Lol.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Hmm, nothing to this, I'm sure.

"Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say"

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.