quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:
Sounds to me like Trump got funds to build a wall. Am I wrong?

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it?

Just what exactly is your problem? Huh?

I don't have a problem. I'm simply pointing out that the American taxpayers are being saddled with the cost of this thing when Mexico was supposed to pay for it. That may still happen, I don't know. We'll see.

Do you really care who pays for it at this point as long as it goes up?

quote:

The outpouring of residents from blue to red states almost has been one of the biggest demographic stories in American history, with a thousand people making the move every day on average. If you go to states such as Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Texas these days, you'll see many blue-state license plates.

Who you gonna believe?
Mrs. Clinton? Or your own lyin' eyes?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I'm simply pointing out that the American taxpayers are being saddled with the cost of this thing when Mexico was supposed to pay for it.

Did you think Mexico was going to write a check for it on the front end?

We can recover the money over time through various trade deals with Mexico, but I don't know anyone who thought they were going to fork over the cash for it pre-construction. They don't even have to agree to pay for it. We can make it happen without their consent.

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:
Sounds to me like Trump got funds to build a wall. Am I wrong?

Looks like money was appropriated, however there are some significant restrictions on what can be built and what materials can be used.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...ney-be-spent-fencing

Although the omnibus will not allow Trump to start building the kind of wall he promised during his campaign, it does provide $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and design, but there are lots of strings attached.

Pages 673-678 of the omnibus bill deal with border "fencing," saying $1,571,000,000 shall be available only as follows (emphasis added):

(1) $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of secondary fencing, all of which provides for cross-barrier visual situational awareness, along the southwest border in the San Diego Sector; (It has to be see-through, not concrete, in other words.)

(2) $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;

(3) $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;

(4) $445,000,000 for replacement of existing primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border;

(5) $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and design; and

(6) $196,000,000 for acquisition and deployment of border security technology.

(b) The amounts designated...shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017...such as currently deployed steel bollard designs that prioritize agent safety.

(c) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act shall be obligated for construction of a border barrier in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.

The bill gives the Trump administration 180 days to submit to Congress "a risk-based plan for improving security along the borders of the United States, including the use of personnel, fencing, other forms of tactical infrastructure, and technology."

The risk-based plan must include "a statement of goals, objectives, activities, and milestones for the plan" as well as a "detailed implementation schedule."

And there are many other strings attached:

The Trump administration must describe how the plan will enhance border security goals; it must identify where the physical barriers will go up, describe the methodology used to select the barriers; analyze alternatives; assess the effects on communities and property owners near the planned wall; describe "other factors" critical to the decision making process; identify staffing requirements under the plan; consult state and local officials on eminent domain; analyze environmental impacts; certify that the plan complies with Federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices; and those are just some of the restrictions.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it?

That doesn’t mean they will finance it. Build now, pay later.

Plus interest and penalties for late payments.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez joined his fellow Democrats Tuesday in condemning the Trump Administration’s decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census. Perez claimed it was a move aimed at “voter suppression.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...suppression-n2465359

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

I agree w him that this is about voter suppression. But this is about suppressing illegal voters from voting. I bet the DEMs are worried about that happening.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez joined his fellow Democrats Tuesday in condemning the Trump Administration’s decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census. Perez claimed it was a move aimed at “voter suppression.”

I imagine a world with a functional media/press that simply respond to statements like this with "But how so?"

Other acceptable questions they've forgotten to use include, but are not limited to:

"But is it true?"

"But does it work?"

"But is it legal?"

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez joined his fellow Democrats Tuesday in condemning the Trump Administration’s decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census. Perez claimed it was a move aimed at “voter suppression.”

I imagine a world with a functional media/press that simply respond to statements like this with "But how so?"

Other acceptable questions they've forgotten to use include, but are not limited to:

"But is it true?"

"But does it work?"

"But is it legal?"

The morning of Sessions DACA announcement I was listening to my local KNX1070 AM news radio (admittedly a CBS affiliate) but was very impressed that those were the follow up questions the two regular hosts were asking their guests, and repeatedly if one got of on a tangent about something else.

Simple journalism of that level is rare nowadays though it seems.

-RFB

Maybe AG Sessions isn’t as dumb as he looks.

House subpoena rattles Justice Department; Sessions 'angry' at slow response; FBI 'called on the carpet'

quote:

The FBI is promising swift action on a House subpoena covering three politically charged investigations after word that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has grown angry with the bureau's slow-walking of congressional requests for information.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee sent a subpoena to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein demanding documents from the Justice Department and the FBI "regarding charging decisions in the investigation surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommendation to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe," according to a committee press release.

In a letter accompanying the subpoena, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., told Rosenstein the committee had asked for the documents months ago and received little or nothing in response. "Given the department's ongoing delays in producing these documents, I am left with no choice but to issue [a] subpoena to compel production of these documents," Goodlatte wrote.


Late Tuesday, a source who asked to be identified as a "DOJ insider" emailed an update from inside the Justice Department, making clear Sessions has grown impatient with FBI Director Christopher Wray:

Senior staff on both sides of the street have met on this and the FBI is getting called on the carpet. The Attorney General is angry with how slow the process has moved when it comes to requests from Congress to the FBI. He's told Wray that the pace is unacceptable and that if the FBI needs to double the number of people working on this, then that's what they need to do, but he is done seeing the Department criticized for the FBI's slow walking of requests from Congress like the last administration when these requests should be a top priority.

Sure enough, on Tuesday, Wray issued a press release promising to double the number of people working on the document request. From Wray:

As the Director of the FBI, I am committed to ensuring that the Bureau is being transparent and responsive to legitimate congressional requests. Up until today, we have dedicated 27 FBI staff to review the records that are potentially responsive to Chairman Goodlatte's requests. The actual number of documents responsive to this request is likely in the thousands. Regardless, I agree that the current pace of production is too slow. Accordingly, I am doubling the number of assigned FBI staff, for a total of 54, to cover two shifts per day from 8 a.m. to midnight to expedite completion of this project.

Wray's announcement was welcome news to members of the House committee. Welcome — but still cautiously received.

"Obviously that's a good sign, but I'll believe it when I see it," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the committee who has been pursuing the issue, said in an interview Tuesday evening. "But as important as getting documents to us in a much more timely fashion is, are they going to be redacted? We know in the past that documents we have received have been redacted so much that we can't figure them out."

In recent days Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Oversight Committee's subcommittee on government operations, have been sending staff to the Justice Department to view less redacted copies of key documents in the various investigations under review. The presence of those congressional investigators sent a clear message to the Justice Department that the House was not going to give up.

Now, the Justice Department is promising to do better — and the attorney general has signaled that he is not happy with the FBI director's performance. Now, lawmakers will wait to see what that means.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
California has already said it will sue Trump administration. Calls the question illegal.

Every government official in California should be arrested and sent to Gitmo. Hopefully, their transport will hit heavy seas. Very heavy seas.

maybe they should be flown there on C-130s. Gee, it would be a shame if the ramp accidentally dropped and the seating units they were on somehow slid out enroute...

Edit to fix typo. s/searing/seating/

This message has been edited. Last edited by: slosig,

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Maybe AG Sessions isn’t as dumb as he looks.

House subpoena rattles Justice Department; Sessions 'angry' at slow response; FBI 'called on the carpet'

quote:

The FBI is promising swift action on a House subpoena covering three politically charged investigations after word that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has grown angry with the bureau's slow-walking of congressional requests for information.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee sent a subpoena to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein demanding documents from the Justice Department and the FBI "regarding charging decisions in the investigation surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommendation to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe," according to a committee press release.

In a letter accompanying the subpoena, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., told Rosenstein the committee had asked for the documents months ago and received little or nothing in response. "Given the department's ongoing delays in producing these documents, I am left with no choice but to issue [a] subpoena to compel production of these documents," Goodlatte wrote.


Late Tuesday, a source who asked to be identified as a "DOJ insider" emailed an update from inside the Justice Department, making clear Sessions has grown impatient with FBI Director Christopher Wray:

Senior staff on both sides of the street have met on this and the FBI is getting called on the carpet. The Attorney General is angry with how slow the process has moved when it comes to requests from Congress to the FBI. He's told Wray that the pace is unacceptable and that if the FBI needs to double the number of people working on this, then that's what they need to do, but he is done seeing the Department criticized for the FBI's slow walking of requests from Congress like the last administration when these requests should be a top priority.

Sure enough, on Tuesday, Wray issued a press release promising to double the number of people working on the document request. From Wray:

As the Director of the FBI, I am committed to ensuring that the Bureau is being transparent and responsive to legitimate congressional requests. Up until today, we have dedicated 27 FBI staff to review the records that are potentially responsive to Chairman Goodlatte's requests. The actual number of documents responsive to this request is likely in the thousands. Regardless, I agree that the current pace of production is too slow. Accordingly, I am doubling the number of assigned FBI staff, for a total of 54, to cover two shifts per day from 8 a.m. to midnight to expedite completion of this project.

Wray's announcement was welcome news to members of the House committee. Welcome — but still cautiously received.

"Obviously that's a good sign, but I'll believe it when I see it," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the committee who has been pursuing the issue, said in an interview Tuesday evening. "But as important as getting documents to us in a much more timely fashion is, are they going to be redacted? We know in the past that documents we have received have been redacted so much that we can't figure them out."

In recent days Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Oversight Committee's subcommittee on government operations, have been sending staff to the Justice Department to view less redacted copies of key documents in the various investigations under review. The presence of those congressional investigators sent a clear message to the Justice Department that the House was not going to give up.

Now, the Justice Department is promising to do better — and the attorney general has signaled that he is not happy with the FBI director's performance. Now, lawmakers will wait to see what that means.

Link

Still can't get excited about the FBI/DOJ Swamp critters investigating themselves, or giving any real help to Congressional investigations.

Rosenstein and Wray = TOP. MEN.

ANALYSIS: Constitution Compels Sessions Dismiss Mueller From Non-Campaign Cases


Paul Manafort‘s legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. I agree with this take on Mueller’s authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller’s requested interview with President Trump.

Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related to obstruction of Mueller’s investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases would be exercising Sessions’ court-recognized Constitutional obligation to “direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort now rightly complains about.

Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public faith that democratically elected officials.

One thing to remember about Sessions’ recusal: Sessions only recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions’ recusal to the 2016 campaigns; it does not authorize Sessions’ recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a “duty to direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory obligations for cases that are not related to the “campaigns for President.”

Second, the Constitution’s Appointment Clause requires the democratic process control the appointment of all but “inferior” officers. This means there can be no principal executive branch officer except those the President personally appoints and the Senate advises and consents to. There is probably no greater domestic power of the executive branch than the power to access a grand jury to indict someone, the power to access a grand jury to subpoena someone’s testimony and records, the power to access the tax records of any individual in the country, the power to request warrants to spy on someone’s activity or search it and seize it, or the power to simply threaten any of the above to an individual American. That is why that power must be limited to principal, democratically-appointed officers. The special counsel, when not appointed by the President, cannot act legally except as an “inferior” officer, strictly limited to the jurisdictional subject matter limits of his appointment and supervisory power of those above him that have been directly, democratically appointed by democratically elected officials. As a federal district court held: “the special counsel cannot act outside the bounds of either his limited jurisdiction or without regard for Department of Justice policies and regulations. As such, the Special Counsel does not wield unlimited authority.” Indeed, a special counsel’s “authority is therefore confined to the narrow objective of accomplishing the specific mandate he was given.”

Third, Sessions limiting Mueller would enforce the limits intended on Rosenstein’s letter authorization. Contrary to anti-Trump critics, Mueller’s mandate was not “get Trump,” “indict anybody who ever worked for Trump.” Mueller’s authority is limited to “links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” Any subject matter that does not concern “the campaign,” is a subject matter that Sessions Constitutionally must directly supervise Mueller. This includes Sessions power to notify Mueller and formally revoke Mueller’s authority at any time in cases that do not concern the campaign itself. Sessions can remove Mueller’s authority to request search warrants, subpoena grand jury testimony, subpoena grand jury records, target individuals, or issue indictments unless the subject matter is constricted to the campaign itself. Sessions can return power over the existing indictments to regular DOJ prosecutors, as both the Constitution and the statutes compel. Sessions can dismiss existing indictments as an excess of authority of Mueller’s team (a team already infamous for acting outside their authority in the past, whether it be ethical abuses or over-broad, unconstitutional interpretations of federal criminal law).

Fourth, Sessions taking formal notice of his authority would remedy what some saw as an over broad authorization by Rosenstein. One argument for Mueller investigating 2005 tax crimes and 2010 bank fraud crimes and 2013 foreign agent crimes was that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate all crimes that “directly arise” from the investigation. As some legal critics noted, there were always two problems with this interpretation of Rosenstein’s authorization: first, if it could be interpreted so broadly, it would make Mueller a de facto Attorney General of the United States, which the Appointments Clause does not permit, rendering such an authorization in violation; second, if it could be interpreted as broadly as Mueller has done so, then it failed to conform to the statutes and regulations governing special counsel authorizations. Regardless, Sessions retaking his authority formally would render the issue moot. Why? Because Rosenstein himself did not have the authority to create a special counsel for anything beyond the areas Sessions recused himself.

In sum, Sessions notifying Mueller he does not have authority to act on non-campaign related investigations would restore Mueller’s special counsel’s office to its intended Constitutional constrictions, remove the Beria-style investigative techniques witnessed over the past year, and restore public faith that our Constitutional democracy is still a Constitutional democracy. It would also prove Sessions is more than as Trump calls him — Mr. Magoo.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
ANALYSIS: Constitution Compels Sessions Dismiss Mueller From Non-Campaign Cases

Thank you for that.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...breaking-va-n2465716

President Donald Trump has announced he will nominate Dr. Admiral Ronny Jackson to be the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Current Secretary David Shulkin has been asked to step aside after coming under heavy scrutiny and criticism in recent weeks for lavish spending and a lack of reform at the VA.

“I am proud to nominate Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson M.D. as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Admiral Jackson is highly trained and qualified and as a service member himself, he has seen firsthand the tremendous sacrifice our veterans make and has a deep appreciation for the debt our great country owes them,” Trump said.

I think that this was a poor choice. Good for him for being a physician, and by all accounts a fine one, but a physician does not an administrator make.

The VA needs someone at the top trained in hospital/business administration.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I think that this was a poor choice. Good for him for being a physician, and by all accounts a fine one, but a physician does not an administrator make.

The VA needs someone at the top trained in hospital/business administration.

Well he certainly can't do any worse than that no load Trump just cut loose.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I think that this was a poor choice. Good for him for being a physician, and by all accounts a fine one, but a physician does not an administrator make.

Yeah, but he's an Aggie. So he'll do just fine.

Besides, he didn't make Admiral just because he was always the best physician on staff. He's held a few leadership positions too. Bio.

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I think that this was a poor choice. Good for him for being a physician, and by all accounts a fine one, but a physician does not an administrator make.

Yeah, but he's an Aggie. So he'll do just fine.

Besides, he didn't make Admiral just because he was always the best physician on staff. He's held a few leadership positions too. Bio.

I’ll be darned! And not Animal Husbandry major either.

He is an expert in rifle and pistol, among other awards

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
The VA needs someone at the top trained in hospital/business administration.

No, the VA needs to be disbanded. Why in the hell should we continue to throw taxpayer money at an organization that is 30 years behind the times, and incapable of functioning as effectively for our veterans as the private sector. Its time to stop wading around the edges of the pond and just drain the damn thing. [/rant off]

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
The VA needs someone at the top trained in hospital/business administration.

No, the VA needs to be disbanded. Why in the hell should we continue to throw taxpayer money at an organization that is 30 years behind the times, and incapable of functioning as effectively for our veterans as the private sector. Its time to stop wading around the edges of the pond and just drain the damn thing. [/rant off]

I favor private care providers.

Still, some means has to be in place to discourage private care providers from ripping off the government cheese, which happens any time money is available to be had.

The VA as currently configured is far from doing the best that could be done, and at greater expense.