Another WWWIIINNN.


A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a challenge to President Trump’s voter fraud panel does not have the legal standing to move forward.

In a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit opinion, Judge Stephen Williams did not rule on the merits of the case but instead said the plaintiff -- the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) -- is “not a voter” and therefore has no legal standing to sue for alleged violations of the 2002 E-Government Act.

EPIC “has suffered no informational or organizational injury from the defendants’ attempt to collect voter data without first producing an assessment,” Williams wrote.


The privacy-rights group had sought to sue Trump’s controversial “election integrity” commission, alleging the panel violated federal law by gathering massive amounts of information on the country’s registered voters.

Several privacy watchdogs have spoken out against the panel and have questioned whether the information gathered would be kept safe from hackers. They also raised concerns that the data could be used for nefarious political purposes like voter suppression.

The Trump administration argues that collecting large quantities of voter data is legal because the panel is not a federal agency and doesn’t have to do an “impact assessment” to show whether it violates privacy rights or not.

EPIC countered that because the panel operates as part of the General Services Administration – a federal agency – it must prove it’s not infringing on the privacy rights of millions of Americans before it can act.

The voter fraud commission is led by Vice President Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. It has asked all 50 states and D.C. to hand over publicly available data from state voter rolls and sensitive information about voters.

Virginia, Kentucky and California are among states that have said they won’t comply.

The commission also has been a frequent target of civil and voting-rights groups which argue there is no definitive evidence of widespread voter fraud in the United States.

Kobach disagrees, and has described the fears about voter suppression as baffling.


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...raud-commission.html

Ok, I'm getting downright giddy about all that's been accomplished in the last year.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent The Daily Caller News Foundation a Christmas present this year by finally responding to a records request from more than two years ago.

Well, it wasn’t all holiday cheer. EPA said TheDCNF needed to narrow down its two-year-old request for emails between Obama administration officials and environmental groups regarding the Clean Power Plan.

Federal agencies are required by law to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests within twenty working days. TheDCNF filed its FOIA request on May 29, 2015, and EPA responded on Dec. 21, 2017 — that’s 646 working days.

EPA’s response is only 626 days late. It’s a Christmas miracle!

TheDCNF filed the FOIA request in the months leading up to the Obama EPA’s announcing the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a regulation aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The rule was expected to hasten the closure of coal-fired power plants.

The New York Times reported in summer 2014 that EPA based the CPP on a report circulated by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NYT report sparked congressional inquiries into possible collusion between NRDC and EPA in crafting the rule.

TheDCNF filed its FOIA to see the extent to which environmental groups worked with Obama administration officials on the CPP. The Obama EPA, however, sat on the request for years.

Conservatives were critical of the Obama administration’s handling of FOIA requests. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), found that EPA in particular made it harder for conservatives to obtain information, while expediting environmentalists’ requests.

CEI is no stranger to FOIA litigation either. The libertarian group sued EPA in 2015 over the agency’s slow-walking a FOIA request for emails from former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s alias account “Richard Windsor.”

EPA’s planned to release 120,000 records associated with CEI’s request at a pace of 100 per month — meaning the request will be fulfilled in about 100 years.

So why is EPA responding to TheDCNF’s request now? EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made a commitment to respond to the backlog of FOIAs left behind during the Obama years.

In November, EPA said it had processed 70 percent of the the 652 requests left open at the beginning of 2017, some of which had been left open for years.

EPA is also dealing with a record number of FOIA requests this year. The agency received nearly 11,500 requests, which is nearly 1,000 more than they got in 2016. EPA’s 2017 FOIA load is the biggest since 2007.

The Trump administration began repealing the CPP in October and is soon expected to propose a plan to replace it.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12...d-a-half-years-late/

quote:

Federal agencies are required by law to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests within twenty working days. TheDCNF filed its FOIA request on May 29, 2015, and EPA responded on Dec. 21, 2017 — that’s 646 working days.

I guess it all depends on what your understanding of a "working day" is.

Trump said no deal on the McCabe resignation. Seems the pres wants to keep him on the hot seat.
Sounds like there's a bad moon rising for McCabe and others coming in a few weeks.

quote:

So by mid-January the House Judiciary Committee will have massive investigative documentation surrounding Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and all of the top-tier team members around them for all of their principle activity throughout the past few years; with emphasis on 2016.

Put another way, Andrew McCabe, is going to be in FULL SUNLIGHT on or around January 15th, 2018, for any misconduct.

That explains the transparent reason for McCabe offering terms. However, the content of that year-long investigation is also the transparent reason for President Trump refusing McCabe’s terms.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Trump said no deal on the McCabe resignation. Seems the pres wants to keep him on the hot seat.
Sounds like there's a bad moon rising for McCabe and others coming in a few weeks.

quote:

So by mid-January the House Judiciary Committee will have massive investigative documentation surrounding Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and all of the top-tier team members around them for all of their principle activity throughout the past few years; with emphasis on 2016.

Put another way, Andrew McCabe, is going to be in FULL SUNLIGHT on or around January 15th, 2018, for any misconduct.

That explains the transparent reason for McCabe offering terms. However, the content of that year-long investigation is also the transparent reason for President Trump refusing McCabe’s terms.

Link

Sorry, I don’t understand the bit about offering terms. McCabe becimes eligible for retirement benefits and says he will take it, or what?

From reading the article it sounded as if McCabe offered up his resignation in March in return for no return fire. This is what Trump said no to.
McCabe may be free to retire from his position but retiring is not going to exonerate him from anything which is what McCabe was hoping.

I liked this comment at the link


"McCabe is the desperate fish frantically flopping around on the pier hoping PDJT kicks him back into the water. I’m guessing that the President has a grin on his face and a filet knife in his hand."

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
From reading the article it sounded as if McCabe offered up his resignation in March in return for no return fire. This is what Trump said no to.
McCabe may be free to retire from his position but retiring is not going to exonerate him from anything which is what McCabe was hoping.

Isn’t this a click bait site? Who is sundance?

Has anyone seen the Post article sundance is reading tea leaves over?

quote:

President Donald Trump personally paid for hundreds of Christmas dinners for members of law enforcement who were working over the holiday.
Hundreds of Christmas dinners were served on Christmas day to members of the Secret Service, the White House Military Office, and the Palm Beach Sheriff Department, according to a source speaking to CNN’s Noah Gray.

The meals were described as a “full Christmas spread” and included turkey and a dessert buffet. The meals were served from 1-7 p.m. so that everyone could get food on a rotating shift.

Trump is spending his Christmas holiday at his club at Mar-a-lago.

...and the last President always cost the taxpayers millions to finance each of his Hawaiian Christmas vacations.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...working-the-holiday/

Another great one from James Woods! Merry post-Christmas, All!

More winning. One side has sour grapes while the other side is celebrating.

quote:

Mastercard Inc said shoppers spent over $800 billion during the season, more than ever before, boosted by growing consumer confidence, rising employment and early discounts.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-de...5126015--sector.html

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
Another great one from James Woods! Merry post-Christmas, All!

That is just downright hilarious! "Abracadabra, bitch."

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
From reading the article it sounded as if McCabe offered up his resignation in March in return for no return fire. This is what Trump said no to.
McCabe may be free to retire from his position but retiring is not going to exonerate him from anything which is what McCabe was hoping.

Isn’t this a click bait site? Who is sundance?

Has anyone seen the Post article sundance is reading tea leaves over?

Sundance is a blogger at “The Conservative Treehouse” Site. I would call it click bait. They seem to have pretty good sources, and have been tracking the mueller team issues pretty well

one of the things Nunes is trying to find out is who were the reporters that Fusion GPS paid

There is suspicion that Fusion paid reporters to spread the dossier story.

one name that might pop up is Michael Isikoff

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11...-marathon-testimony/

The Daily Caller has also been told that Simpson and Yahoo! News reporter Michael Isikoff are “good” friends.

Isikoff wrote a Sept. 23, 2016 article at Yahoo! that cites allegations made in the dossier. But at the time, it was not known that the dossier existed or that the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, or Steele were involved in a Trump investigative project.

https://www.redstate.com/strei...trump-dossier-story/

On Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff published a bombshell story under the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Mr. Isikoff said “U.S. officials” had “received intelligence” about Mr. Page and Russians, and then went on to recite verbatim all the unfounded dossier allegations. He attributed all this to a “well-placed Western intelligence source,” making it sound as if this info had come from someone in government rather than from an ex-spy-for-hire.

The Clinton campaign jumped all over it, spinning its own oppo research as a government investigation into Mr. Trump. Jennifer Palmieri, the campaign’s communications director, the next day took to television to tout the Isikoff story and cite “U.S. intelligence officials” in the same breath as Mr. Page. Other Clinton surrogates fanned out on TV and Twitter to spread the allegations.

*************

this fabrication was all orchestrated and organized

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
Another great one from James Woods! Merry post-Christmas, All!

......And in this corner........James WOODS!!

lol.

Long read, but a good one - another DJT '17 article


'This last year, after the year of his nomination and election, has been the second round of Donald Trump's war to crush and expel the American political establishment. This year he has won over the congressional Republican party, which had almost entirely opposed him, to toil in the enactment of his program. Together they have achieved the greatest tax reform and reduction in over 30 years, largely emasculated Obamacare, put a rod on the backs of those states that elect incompetents like Jerry Brown and the Cuomos and lay the resulting state income taxes off on the whole country, repatriated trillions of dollars of corporate profit, exonerated over half the people from personal income taxes, reduced the return of 80 percent of taxpayers to a postcard, and produced conditions for 4 percent GDP growth next year. The Obama apologetics that a flatlined economy with a shrunken work force and a burgeoning multitude of Medicaid-sedated idleness was the new normal has been debunked; it is the abnormal recent past.'

http://www.conradmblack.com/1358/trump-whirlwind-year

http://www.washingtonexaminer....robe/article/2644460

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued a subpoena to David Kramer, a former State Department official who, in late November 2016, traveled to London to receive a briefing and a copy of the Trump dossier from its author, former British spy Christopher Steele. Kramer then returned to the U.S. to give the document to Sen. John McCain.

Kramer is a senior fellow at the McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University.

McCain later took a copy of the dossier to the FBI's then-director, James Comey. But the FBI already had the document; Steele himself gave the dossier to the bureau in installments, reportedly beginning in early July 2016.

Kramer was interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee on Dec. 19. The new subpoena stems from statements Kramer made in that interview.

In the session, Kramer told House investigators that he knew the identities of the Russian sources for the allegations in Steele's dossier. But when investigators pressed Kramer to reveal those names, he declined to do so.

Now, he is under subpoena. The subpoena, issued Wednesday afternoon, directs Kramer to appear again before House investigators on Jan. 11.

***************

so the guy who works for McCain Institute and brought the "dossier" to John McCain, also knows who the sources of the story are.

Assuming that is true (a big assumption), can you possibly imagine that Kramer would not have told McCain ?

I wonder if Kramer will be asked if he shared that info w McCain ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued a subpoena to David Kramer, a former State Department official who, in late November 2016, traveled to London to receive a briefing and a copy of the Trump dossier from its author, former British spy Christopher Steele. Kramer then returned to the U.S. to give the document to Sen. John McCain.

This is one of the many reasons why, when this traitor dies, I will not mourn him or honor him, not at all.

Let's see- for our magical potion, let's add some Eye of Newt...