quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, was one of two "no" votes, the other coming from Sen. Shalonn "Kiki" Curls, D-Kansas City.

Shyreese Del Font abstained

. . . and still smacks of royalty

It's all coming together Clinton and Comey

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...5001/?#sp=show-clips

Evidence continues mounting against James Comey

Sep. 13, 2017 - 6:53 - Director of Investigations and Research for Judicial Watch Chris Farrell explains why former FBI Director James Comey could come under investigation in upcoming months.

McConnell needs to get off his ass and jam these nominations thru

https://hotair.com/archives/20...ates-judiciary-wars/

Though the Senate has virtually eliminated the ability of the minority party to block appointments to the bench from the Supreme Court on down, individual senators can still thwart nominees from their home states by refusing to sign off on a form popularly known for its color — the blue slip.

Now, with some Democrats refusing to consent as the Trump administration moves to fill scores of judicial vacancies, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, is for the first time publicly advocating that the blue slip be made strictly advisory when it comes to appeals court nominees — the most powerful judges after those on the Supreme Court.

“My personal view is that the blue slip, with regard to circuit court appointments, ought to simply be a notification of how you’re going to vote, not the opportunity to blackball,” Mr. McConnell said in an interview with The New York Times for “The New Washington” podcast. He said he favored retaining the blue slip authority for lower-level district court judges.


Al Franken’s holding up David Stras, a conservative Minnesota Supreme Court jurist with an impeccable track record, supposedly because Franken hasn’t had time to research Stras. Both senators from Oregon have stalled Ryan Bounds’ nomination because the White House didn’t consult with them first. Both are excuses; Democrats want to block qualified conservative jurists from taking places on the appellate court, not protect the judiciary from either corruption or incompetence, which is ostensibly why the blue slip process exists in the first place.

And people wonder why Trump is talking with the democrats? It's because if you want to get anything done you have to talk to the people in charge. That isn't the current 'majority' party.

the republicrats are feeling left out?


awww...gee, well, perhaps you should remember why you became the majority party, get off your asses and accomplish something meaningful

you know, like something the American people want

these bastard politicians forget that they're servants and not masters

They truly are repugnant, disgusting, spineless assholes. If they had a shred of integrity, they would be ashamed of themselves.

More Git Er Done LEADERSHIP

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...5001/?#sp=show-clips

Federal government has done a great job in response to Irma, Rep. Flores say

Sep. 14, 2017 - 5:15 - Rep. Anitere Flores (R-Fla.) on President Trump’s response to the damage done to Florida by Hurricane Irma.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...2001/?#sp=show-clips

Could China create a regime change in North Korea?

Sep. 14, 2017 - 5:18 - Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney on what the U.S. needs to do to deal with North Korea’s weapons provocations.

POTUS and FLOTUS visiting the storm torn areas and helping to pass out food donations.

Awesome story about an 11-year-old who cut the lawn in the Rose Garden today. I love that the President was right there with him in one of the pictures.


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...hite-house-lawn.html

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...7001/?#sp=show-clips

Should Jeff Sessions resign as attorney general?

Sep. 15, 2017 - 6:33 - Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett on Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian probe, and why Jeff Session should not continue to be the Attorney General.

quote:

Originally posted by 41:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...7001/?#sp=show-clips

Should Jeff Sessions resign as attorney general?

Sep. 15, 2017 - 6:33 - Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett on Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian probe, and why Jeff Session should not continue to be the Attorney General.

Being called incompetent by Gregg Jarrett is like being called ugly by a frog. Jarrett isn't fit to carry Sessions' briefcase.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
. . .Being called incompetent by Gregg Jarrett is like being called ugly by a frog. Jarrett isn't fit to carry Sessions' briefcase.

Perhaps true.

Yet, I remain bitterly disappointed by Sessions' spineless failure to act on a number of fronts:

Unwarranted decision to self-recuse from the whole "Russian Boogeyman" farce, leading to the ongoing witch hunt we have now

Failure to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton for corruption (pay to play enrichment of the Clinton Foundation) and mishandling of classified information while in office as Obama's Secretary of State

Failure to investigate and prosecute Lois Lerner for turning the IRS into Obama's political enforcement arm

Failure to investigate and stop ongoing deep state leaks

This guy isn't what he cracked up to be.

Thanks,

Sap

quote:

Being called incompetent by Gregg Jarrett is like being called ugly by a frog. Jarrett isn't fit to carry Sessions' briefcase.

You are entitled to your opinion but we need a junk yard dog for AG like we have a bully/card shark for President.

Also I find Gregg Jarrett's analysis to be right on in most cases.

Sessions needs to go. He dosen't have the stomach to fight the democrats.

Remember what we are missing.




Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3lJfnJd68

quote:

Originally posted by 41:

quote:

Being called incompetent by Gregg Jarrett is like being called ugly by a frog. Jarrett isn't fit to carry Sessions' briefcase.

You are entitled to your opinion but we need a junk yard dog for AG like we have a bully/card shark for President.

Also I find Gregg Jarrett's analysis to be right on in most cases.

I bet you think a bullet button turns an AR15 into full auto, as Gregg calmly explained not long ago.

There are a few points one needs to keep in mind in forming opinions about the A/G as a "junk yard dog."

In no particular order,

The DOJ employs over 100,000 employees, more than 10,000 of them lawyers. You ought not be silly enough to believe that all of them, or even many of them, are fully seized of the present administration's policies and objectives and are eager to carry them into action unequivocally. Some in key management roles are changed at the pleasure of the President, but a great many are not. A great many are career employees who cannot be dismissed under civil service rules. To the extent those senior positions are confirmable, many are unfilled while the Senate slow rolls the process.

The role of DOJ is to prosecute, not persecute. Prosecutors have a particularly strong duty to act fairly because, as the Supreme Court has explained, they are the representatives “not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” In the words of fabled defense lawyer Brendan Sullivan, “[ i]f the government is not honest, it can trump even the best efforts of those of us who work in the system.” This implies patient, deliberate, thoughtful evaluation of investigations, and evidence, rather incompatible with the mindset of what we usually think of as "junk yard dogs."

The A/G seldom if ever has first hand information about a particular matter, and is dependent on the reports, recommendations and evaluations of those employees.

While it is delicious to think about a DOJ smiting our tormentors, there are few things you should fear more than an overly aggressive, out of control DOJ. Go look into the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska in 2008 for just one example of what can happen when winning convictions is more important than justice and the rule of law.

I think we are better off to have Sessions, who has long experience in these matters, able to tell the President when while there are deep suspicions, there isn't the evidence of crime to support a conviction in a particular case. None of us have the training and experience evaluating the innumerable factors of criminal, procedural and evidentiary laws essential to successfully prosecute a case in federal court.

We do not know whether, or if, there are investigations in process on some, or all, or any, of the outrages we have complained about in the prior administration. Some may yet be prosecutable. Many may not be, for good and valid reasons.

Keep these things in mind when fixing your opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Remember what we are missing.




Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3lJfnJd68

Within miles? Can she see it from her house?

That close, huh? Quite the total idiot, the whole package, she is. This is our former SecState at work.

quote:

Originally posted by 83v45magna:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Remember what we are missing.

Within miles? Can she see it from her house?

That close, huh? Quite the total idiot, the whole package, she is. This is our former SecState at work.

Well, I suppose she could've been referring to the DMZ which is actually a couple of miles wide.