Nucor CEO on tariffs: We've been in a trade war for 30 years


http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...1001/?#sp=show-clips

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I do have to wonder at this point- do some of you- after all you've seen- still have no clue as to how Donald Trump operates?

Stop giving such weight to off-the-cuff remarks, and pay attention to the man's actions.

LOOK!! over there! ELEPHANT! LOL

[/QUOTE]Wrong and wrong.[/QUOTE]
Um, I'm not wrong. I'm a lawyer, and I litigate constitutional questions such as this.

You may "hate" these types of arguments because they prove the fallacy of your logic, and it is OK to feel that way when you lose.

But my position and arguments are supported by the constitution and hundreds of years of legal precedent. Yours, not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

Um, I'm not wrong. I'm a lawyer, and I litigate constitutional questions such as this.

You may "hate" these types of arguments because they prove the fallacy of your logic, and it is OK to feel that way when you lose.

But my position and arguments are supported by the constitution and hundreds of years of legal precedent. Yours, not so much.

In regards to the point Bigdeal was addressing, you seemingly are wrong. The Constitution doesn't give us any rights.

To the discussion we were having concerning possible age discrimination, it seems that some law experts have raised the same questions I have:

Legal experts said they saw no likely challenges to Dick’s decision to stop selling assault-style rifles. But the decision to stop selling weapons to anyone under 21, however, could be tested in court.

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at the School of Law of the University of California, Los Angeles, said Dick’s could be challenged in lawsuits claiming a violation of laws that bar age discrimination. Although federal civil rights laws do not apply, some states, including New York, prohibit businesses from denying goods and services on the basis of age. “Don’t be surprised if an aggressive attorney general of a gun-friendly state brings an age-discrimination claim against Dick’s,” Professor Winkler wrote in an email response to questions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...-guns-they-sell.html

And there you have it. The professors agree with me. The only possible claim is one based on a potential vioation of some state's law. That has nothing to do with the action violating anyone's constitutional rights, so the action is constitutional, but it might violate some state law that says you can't deny someone goods and services based on their age. I still believe that such a claim would be meritless, because age-related restrictions have long been upeld; such as state minimum ages for alcohol purchases or tobacco purchases. I say good luck to the 10 year old child who files a lawsuit against a retailer claiming she is being "discriminated against" because she can't buy cigarettes, alcohol, or firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:
I say good luck to the 10 year old child who files a lawsuit against a retailer claiming she is being "discriminated against" because she can't buy cigarettes, alcohol, or firearms.

Oh my god, man. Why do you keep going down that road? That has absolutely nothing to do with this. There wouldn't be any case there because it is against the law for the store to sell those items to a minor in the first place.

My position was simple, that a case might be made against these stores who've decided not to sell to a whole age group based solely on the store's belief that those people aren't worthy, and it appears that that may be so.

[/QUOTE]

...a case might be made against these stores who've decided not to sell to a whole age group based solely on the store's belief that those people aren't worthy, and it appears that that may be so.[/QUOTE]

At least you now understand what I have been trying to help you with for several posts. Such a state law 'age discrimination' lawsuit for allgedly not selling 'goods and services' to a specific class of people has NOTHING to do with anyone's constitutional right to bear arms. I keep giving examples because analogies make things easier to understand.

Mueller expanding the witch hunt again

"George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, has hovered on the fringes of international diplomacy for three decades. He was a back-channel negotiator with Syria during the Clinton administration, reinvented himself as an adviser to the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, and last year was a frequent visitor to President Trump’s White House.

Mr. Nader is now a focus of the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned Mr. Nader and have pressed witnesses for information about any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, according to people with knowledge of the discussions."

Rosenstein is Mueller's boss. Rosenstein needs to step up and put some fences around Mueller's investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Mueller expanding the witch hunt again

"George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, has hovered on the fringes of international diplomacy for three decades. He was a back-channel negotiator with Syria during the Clinton administration, reinvented himself as an adviser to the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, and last year was a frequent visitor to President Trump’s White House.

Mr. Nader is now a focus of the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned Mr. Nader and have pressed witnesses for information about any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, according to people with knowledge of the discussions."

Rosenstein is Mueller's boss. Rosenstein needs to step up and put some fences around Mueller's investigation.

Why? What’s the harm? Trump needed no money. Is it fishing in a dry lake?

The danger is that w 16 aggressive prosecutors, and no limits on the investigation, they can likely find something to charge the President.

Donald Trump and many of his staff were rookies at running a Presidential campaign. With complex laws and ambiguous situations, prosecutors who want to find something likely will find something.

It will be a tremendous help to the President if we can get some of the corruption of the FBI and DoJ widely accepted. That would tarnish Mueller if only in public opinion.

I expect that is why the DEMs are attacking Nunes so hard. If Nunes is successful in exposing the conspiracy, Mueller's investigation looks bad.

Heh, heh…

“CHERRY HILL, N.J. (AP) - Resistance to the Republican tax overhaul comes with an ideological twist for some Democratic state officials: They've styled themselves as champions of the working class but are pushing hard for measures that would reduce taxes mostly for the wealthy…”

http://www.citizentribune.com/...6b-2cc028bac514.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-up-sources-say.html

During the final months of the Clinton email investigation, FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server that suggested a possible breach, but there was no significant follow up, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.

Sources told Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in 2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment.

One source said: “Nothing happened.”

Fox News is told the Justice Department Inspector General, Michael E. Horowitz, is aware of the allegations.

...

Joey D 3-5-18

Jake The Fake Tapper tweeted "If you're a news organization and the folks in power are constantly praising you, you're doing it wrong. By definition."

James Woods responded. "Your head was so far up Obama's ass, you got whiplash every time he stopped short."

http://thegatewaypundit.com/20...ake-tapper-cleaners/

Tapper always shows up at a war of the wits unarmed......

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Jake The Fake Tapper tweeted "If you're a news organization and the folks in power are constantly praising you, you're doing it wrong. By definition."

James Woods responded. "Your head was so far up Obama's ass, you got whiplash every time he stopped short."

http://thegatewaypundit.com/20...ake-tapper-cleaners/

I'm tempted to open a Twitter account just to follow James Woods.

now thats funny

Gowdy, Goodlatte demand appointment of special counsel, citing FISA abuses

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ing-fisa-abuses.html

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Rep. Trey Gowdy on Tuesday demanded the appointment of a special counsel to investigate “conflicts of interest” and decisions “made and not made” by current and former Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, noting that “the public interest requires” the action.

Gowdy, R-S.C., and Goodlatte, R-Va., penned a letter Tuesday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“Matters have arisen—both recently and otherwise—which necessitate the appointment of a Special Counsel. We do not make this observation and attendant request lightly,” Gowdy and Goodlatte wrote.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Gowdy and Goodlatte spoke about the discovery of new information as their reasoning behind calling for a second independent counsel.

“What changed for me was the knowledge that there are two dozen witnesses that Michael Horowitz, the [DOJ] Inspector General, would not have access to,” Gowdy said. “When I counted up 24 witnesses that he would not be able to access were he to investigate it, yeah only one conclusion, that’s special counsel.”

That list of witnesses included former FBI director James Comey, Gowdy confirmed.
House Intelligence Committee chairman says application for surveillance of the former Trump campaign aide violated FBI rules. Video
Nunes asks DOJ to examine FISA application for Carter Page

Last week, Sessions announced that Horowitz would investigate allegations of government surveillance abuse in light of memos released on Capitol Hill by the House Intelligence Committee which suggested, at least on the Republican side, that the dossier compiled by ex-U.K. intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

“Absolutely, this whole FISA warrant was on Carter Page,” Gowdy told Fox News.

Goodlatte agreed stating that the case on which the warrant was built was “highly suspect.”

The lawmakers wrote, “There is evidence of bias, trending toward animus, among those charged with investigating serious cases.”

They added, “There is evidence political opposition research was used in court filings. There is evidence this political opposition research was neither vetted before it was used nor fully revealed to the relevant tribunal.”

Both lawmakers said they didn’t know when or if a second counsel would be appointed at all.

“This fact pattern is unique and compelling and I think he really ought to consider it,” Gowdy said.

Asked why a special counsel was needed, Gowdy told Fox News earlier, “Congress doesn’t have the tools to investigate this... We leak like the Gossip Girls.”

Gowdy and Goodlatte wrote that because the “decisions of both former and current Department of Justice and FBI officials are at issue,” they did not believe the DOJ was “capable” of investigating the “fact patterns in a fashion likely to garner public confidence.”

Both Gowdy and Goodlatte have announced in recent months they would not seek re-election this year.

President Trump blasted Sessions' decision to use Horowitz, saying he appointed an “Obama guy” to investigate “potentially massive FISA abuse.”

Horowitz also is investigating former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and whether he wanted to avoid taking action on new Clinton emails found on disgraced Democratic New York Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop, reports said. According to records, McCabe knew about the emails belonging to Hillary Clinton in September 2016, but did not choose to brief former FBI Director James Comey until October 26, 2016 — prompting the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation just one week before the presidential election.

“While we have confidence in the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, the DOJ IG does not have the authority to investigate other governmental entities or former employees of the Department, the Bureau, or other agencies,” Gowdy and Goodlatte wrote. Gowdy also serves as chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

They added: “Some have been reluctant to call for the appointment of a Special Counsel because such an appointment should be reserved for those unusual cases where existing investigative and prosecutorial entities cannot adequately discharge those duties. We believe this is just such a case.”

Goodlatte, who penned a letter to Sessions in July 2017 and September 2017 calling for the appointment of a second special counsel, received only one response from the Justice Department, suggesting that Sessions had directed senior federal prosecutors to investigate matters involving the Clinton Foundation and the sale of Uranium One — leaving the door open to consider whether “the matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

House Intel ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who recenlty released the Democrats' response memo, said the call for a second counsel was a way for Republicans to investigate “everything but what is most important: Russia’s interference in our election.”

House Oversight ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., also called the letter an attempt by Republicans to “protect Trump.”

Cummings aded, “The Department’s Inspector General is fully capable of conducting an independent review. Here in Congress, our attention should be on investigating how Russia attacked our electoral process—not trying to protect President Trump.”

Goodlatte and Gowdy’s letter came just days after more than a dozen other House Republicans penned a similar note, requesting the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the same issues.

The 13 lawmakers signed onto the letter that stated: “Evidence has come to light that raises serious concerns about decisions and activities by leadership at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding how and why the Clinton probe ended and how and why the Trump-Russia probe began.”

Cliff's link above to audio of DiGenova hits the same point as made by Gowdy and Goodlatte.

Trump DOJ sues California over 'interference' with immigration enforcement

Goddamn straight!

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ion-enforcement.html