quote:

But Bush’s policies created the conditions that brought Trump to power

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Gorsuch hearing will be from Monday to Thursday
...
Blumenthal (D)

I think it was he I saw earlier saying he's going to oppose Gorsuch. Predictable.

predictable show

but he will be confirmed

the republicans need to get on board and their constituents need to start telling them they will be held PERSONALLY accountable for every mistake they make

Trump was voted in for a reason, and they can join the party or they can be removed from it

didn't see this posted elsewhere..

Five Ninth Circuit Judges Issue Rare Dissent Rebuking The Panel In Immigration Ruling

https://jonathanturley.org/201...-immigration-ruling/

Despite a surprising lack of media attention, the Ninth Circuit saw a relatively rare filing of a dissent in the appeal of the first executive order.

Critics of the order have celebrated the panel decision, though many of us (including opponents of the immigration order) criticized the opinion as poorly written and supported.

Nevertheless, critics have said that four judges in that case ruled against the President. (That is not counting Judge Brinkema in Virginia). However, the count is now roughly even for the first appeal of the order.

In a surprising move, five judges (including the highly respected Chief Judge Alex Kozinski) filed a dissent to the motion for rehearing. The blistering dissent showed that a significant number of Ninth Circuit judges strongly disagreed with the decision of the panel. (Some judges may have not approved of the panel decision but did not see the need for a rehearing).

As previously raised by experts, the strongly worded dissent belies the claim that the original executive order was legally unsustainable. To see this type of vociferous dissent in a withdrawn appeal is remarkable in itself but it also shows the depth of opposition to the panel’s decision among other judges.

The dissenting judges objected that there is an “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors of the panel. It called those errors “fundamental” and even questioned the manner in which the panel reached its decision with a telephonic oral argument. The dissent raised many of the problems that various commentators have raised, including myself.

The lack of consideration to opposing case law, failure to address the statutory authority given to the President, and the sweeping dismissal of executive authority are obvious flaws. (These problems are also apparent in the ruling in Hawaii, though it was based on establishment rather the due process grounds) The dissenting judges refer to the “clear misstatement of law” in the upholding of the district court so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

The judges said that the panel simply “brushed aside” the clearly controlling case law of Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). Indeed, the panel noted that the panel missed entirely the rulings in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) and Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).

In a statement that is particularly probative of the Hawaii ruling, the Supreme Court in Mandel recognized that first amendment rights were implicated by the executive action but found that “when the executive has exercised its authority to exclude aliens on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment 11 interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.”

These five judges joined in the analysis of the court in Boston in accepting the rational basis for the President’s actions. They insisted that “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.”

The opinion has all of the legal analysis that is so conspicuously absent in the panel decision, which dismissed or ignored countervailing case law of the Supreme Court and even the Ninth Circuit.

The panel poignantly noted:

We are all acutely aware of the enormous controversy and chaos that attended the issuance of the Executive Order. People contested the extent of the national security interests at stake, and they debated the value that the Executive Order added to our security against the real suffering of potential emigres. As tempting as it is to use the judicial power to balance those competing interests as we see fit, we cannot let our personal inclinations get ahead of important, overarching principles about who gets to make decisions in our democracy. For better or worse, every four years we hold a contested presidential election. We have all found ourselves disappointed with the election results in one election cycle or another. But it is the best of American traditions that we also understand and respect the consequences of our elections. Even when we disagree with the judgment of the political branches—and perhaps especially when we disagree—we have to trust that the wisdom of the nation as a whole will prevail in the end.

The only judges to join in a written defense of the denial were the three judges from the panel — Judges William Canby, Richard Clifton, and Michelle Friedland — and perhaps the most liberal member of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Reinhardt. The original panelists noted that “The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration.”

Reinhardt added a not-so-veiled dig at critics (and likely the President himself): “I am proud to be a part of this court and a judicial system that is independent and courageous, and that vigorously protects the constitutional rights of all, regardless of the source of any efforts to weaken or diminish them.”

It is also worth noting that Bybee clearly indicated the judges — liberal and conservative alike — opposed the attacks by President Trump on judges:

“The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse—particularly when they came from the parties. It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy.”

So I'm curious several members have posted news stories about the FBI surveillance of Trump as a candidate. It appears clear evidence.

Is this being simply ignored, or was that all fake news?

It's getting hard to keep up on what is fake and what is real.

There is no discernible reality anymore. Maybe there never was.
It's all up to you to find the truth.

A recent newscaster who has been dethroned once said, "We put out the news and you can decide if it's true or not"....it was something like that if memory serves me....which at best is a bit foggy at times

Link

Secret Service removes agent who didn't want to take 'a bullet' for Trump


The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take "a bullet" from him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job.

About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent's prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources.

Kerry O'Grady, the agent in question, is on administrative leave amid an internal Secret Service investigation into her Facebook comments about Trump.

Current and former Secret Service agents and officers are worried that top officials at the agency are working to shield O'Grady from being fired.

They are worried that she will be transferred to another division of the Homeland Security Department and allowed to serve out her time until she can retire with a pension as the agency has done with other officials in the public crosshairs.

In February 2015, Secret Service Deputy Director Alvin "A.T." Smith was forced to resign when the agency was under pressure from Congress after a string of security lapses. He was allowed to transfer to another position in DHS, according to an email that praised his 29 years of service to the agency sent to all staff.

Agents and officers are also questioning whether the agency's top brass tried to insulate O'Grady from any punishment. The Secret Service knew about O'Grady's Facebook comments in October when a whistleblower contacted the agency to notify it, sources told the Washington Examiner. But the agency did not launch an investigation until the Examiner reported on the controversial Facebook comments.

Roughly a month before Election Day in early October, O'Grady wrote that she would rather face "jail time" than take "a bullet" for Trump because she considered him a "disaster" for the country, especially as it relates to women and children. The post was written on her personal Facebook page late on a Sunday night.

In addition to other anti-Trump posts, on Inauguration Day, she updated her profile picture to an artist's rendering of Princess Leia with the words, "A woman's place is in the resistance."

Good

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
Link

Secret Service removes agent who didn't want to take 'a bullet' for Trump


The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take "a bullet" from him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job.

About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent's prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources.

So is that it now? The country has become so politicized and divided that the USSS can only have agents that support the President on the close security detail because of the fear those who voted for the other candidate may not properly execute their duties at the moment of truth?

Is that where we are?

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
. . .So is that it now? The country has become so politicized and divided that the USSS can only have agents that support the President on the close security detail because of the fear those who voted for the other candidate may not properly execute their duties at the moment of truth?

Is that where we are?

To be clear, that's where O'Grady, the agent in question, says she is.

Nobody else is saying anything like that.

How did this dumb twat even get a badge and a gun...thats what I want to know.

Can't tell you how many times I've asked that same question over the past 28 years.

I guess it is an interesting place to be. I can't imagine being a USSS agent assigned to protect Obama. I couldn't rent respect for the guy, and it might cause a little cognitive dissonance going to work thinking that today might be the day when my job called for me to take a bullet for someone who I think isn't worth a bullet. I guess I'd get around it because the job isn't to protect the individual, it is to protect the office. I guess if you can't set aside your opinion of the individual and do the job, you should just resign instead of posting stupid crud on (anti)social media.

quote:

So is that it now? The country has become so politicized and divided that the USSS can only have agents that support the President on the close security detail because of the fear those who voted for the other candidate may not properly execute their duties at the moment of truth?

Is that where we are?

Seems to me that we are at a point where secret service agents are actually expected to do their damned jobs! If you are on the a team to provide security for the president, that is your job, and that includes taking a bullet if necessary to protect him.

Amid all the "news" it is not clear to me that this witch has been fired, transferred or we should simply let the whole issue die a quiet death and she eventually draws her pension.

Her employment should have been terminated within minutes of the disclosure of her comments.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
So is that it now? The country has become so politicized and divided that the USSS can only have agents that support the President on the close security detail because of the fear those who voted for the other candidate may not properly execute their duties at the moment of truth?

Is that where we are?

I think the bigger issue is how many Secret Service officers went on to facebook and cried about how much she hated Trump and would rather go to jail than take a bullet for Trump.

I have a law enforcement job. There are things about the job and people I don't like. My coworkers know this, but I still do my job. What I don't do is go on facebook (or Sigforum) and cry to everyone that I have to do things for meanie, barf spewing, poopy heads and I refuse to do it.

Moreover, I'm not a supervisor in charge going onto facebook (or Sigforum) and tell the world that I'm not going to do my job when it comes to a certain mean, barf spewing, poopy head like Kerry O'Grady did. Everyone else may have the same ideas and might agree with her. They're also 150x smarter than this mental midget (sorry, height challenged person) by not tell everyone about it and would probably do their job even though they don't like it.

To be fair, I really doubt people in the Secret Service wake up hoping to get shot when they get to work, but they know it's a chance when they show up to work.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

“My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret,” she wrote.

Make no mistake, she was completely good with leaking the questions in advance. Completely good with lying to cover it up. It is the fact that she sent the emails that got her caught is her forever regret........

Why tell the truth now? Makes no sense. She's already been busted, already made her stand that she was being persecuted and the emails were fake/false. Why come out six months later and semi fess up?

Just as I was flipping channels this morning from local news to Fox News, I caught George Stephanopoulos' teaser comments for what is coming up on Good Morning America. He said the Comey was testifying today to address "President Trump's false claims" of having his phones tapped....

How does George know if Trump's claims are false or not?

http://www.reuters.com/article...e_editors_picks=true

Canadians appeared to be just as concerned about illegal immigration as their American neighbors

48 percent of Canadians said they supported “increasing the deportation of people living in Canada illegally.”

The increasing flow of hundreds of asylum-seekers of African and Middle Eastern origin from the United States in recent months has become a contentious issue in Canada.

When asked specifically about the recent border crossings from the United States, the same number - 48 percent - said Canada should "send these migrants back to the U.S."

I wonder how Agent O'Grady would feel about taking one for Hillary?