wait a second

DACA was an EO

it had an expiry date built in

that date was selected by Obama

so it expired - exactly as it was supposed to

why is this Trump's fault?

Wikipedia: “On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional. However, he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.”

I wish this guy would just fade away into the sunset.


Arizona GOP Sen. Jeff Flake on Thursday announced his intention to “ask for unanimous consent” to vote on legislation that would "protect" Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Flake, alongside Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., will make the request next week when the Senate assembles, the Arizona lawmaker tweeted.

“When the Senate convenes next week, @ChrisCoons and I will ask for unanimous consent to bring S.2644, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, to a vote on the Senate floor,” he tweeted. “After the firing of The AG, it is more important than ever to protect the Special Counsel.”

The announcement comes after Jeff Sessions resigned from his post as attorney general on Wednesday at the request of President Trump. Sessions' resignation immediately prompted speculation about the future of Mueller's Russia investigation.

Amid Sessions’ resignation, Trump tweeted that Matthew G. Whitaker would fill the role of acting attorney general.

In reaction to Sessions’ announcement, as well as the president’s temporary replacement, top Democrats insisted that Whitaker also recuse himself from the investigation. In his new capacity, Whitaker, who can hold his post for approximately six months without Senate confirmation, is the head official at the Justice Department. That means, at least for now, that he oversees the Mueller probe and the agency's other federal investigations.

The Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, the bill mentioned by Flake, “amends the federal judicial code to codify certain Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations that govern the appointment, oversight, and removal of a special counsel,” according to a summary from Congress.

Among the regulations included are ones “that authorize the Attorney General to appoint and select a special counsel,” “sets up the qualifications, scope of jurisdiction, and authority of a special counsel,” and “authorize the Attorney General to remove a special counsel for misconduct or other good cause.”

The piece of legislation also gives “new statutory limitations and requirements” for removing a special counsel, the summary said.

The legislation mandates that the removal be carried out by the Attorney General “or, in certain circumstances, the most senior Senate-confirmed DOJ official,” necessitates that written notice be given to the special counsel detailing the reasoning behind the removal and “allows a special counsel to challenge the removal in federal court.”

The bill also mandates that the DOJ must inform Congress when a special counsel is either "appointed," "removed" or wraps up their probe.


https://www.foxnews.com/politi...otection-legislation

I don't think the Senate will approve that bill. And the President certainly won't sign it.

flashguy

Obama’s Judges Continue Thwarting Trump

by Andrew McCarthy 10 Nov 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com...-immigration-energy/

As I write on Friday, the restraining order hasn’t come down yet. But it’s just a matter of time. Some federal district judge, somewhere in the United States, will soon issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the Trump administration’s restrictions on asylum applications.

The restrictions come in the form of a rule promulgated jointly by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and a proclamation issued by President Trump. In conjunction, they assert that an alien who wishes to apply for asylum in the United States must act lawfully: An alien who is physically present here and wishes to apply must be in the country legally; an alien outside the country who wishes to apply must present himself at a lawful port of entry — not attempt to smuggle his way in or force his way in as part of a horde (i.e., no invasions by caravan).

It is no longer permitted to expect of non-Americans what is required of Americans — adherence to American law while on American soil.

Therefore, the fact that the administration’s action is entirely reasonable will not matter. No more will it matter that, contrary to numbing media repetition, the rule and proclamation derive from federal statutory law. Nor will it make any difference that, in part, the president is relying on the same sweeping congressional authorization based on which, just four months ago, the Supreme Court affirmed his authority to control the ingress of aliens based on his assessment of national-security needs.

Just two things will matter. The first is that the asylum restrictions represent a Trump policy that reverses Obama policies — specifically, policies of more lax border enforcement, and of ignoring congressionally authorized means of preventing illegal aliens from filing frivolous asylum petitions (with the result that many of them are released, evading further proceedings and deportation). The second is that, precisely to thwart the reversal of Obama policies, President Obama made certain that the vast majority of the 329 federal judges he appointed were progressive activists in the Obama mold.

Conservatives really do want the rule of law, as in the laws that Congress passes and the president signs. That is, we want the country run by accountable office holders who answer to us, whom we can remove if they make bad decisions. We are willing to live under laws we oppose, provided that we have a fair opportunity to repeal or amend them.

That is not what the Lawyer Left is doing. They talk a good game about “ground-up democracy,” but the actual goal is top-down control. Those judges — their judges — are in place to dictate policy outcomes, not to let democracy happen.

The people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have empowered the president to suspend or impose conditions on the ingress of aliens if he finds their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” How can it be denied that the illegal entry of aliens — which patently undermines the rule of law — is detrimental? Yet, there is certain to be a race to be the first judge to issue a restraining order, to champion an imaginary right of aliens to seek asylum however they damn well please.

Just as the administration was readying the new asylum standards, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Trump is powerless to reverse Obama’s DACA policy (Delayed Action on Childhood Arrivals). You’ll be shocked, no doubt, to learn the panel’s composition: two Obama judges and one Clinton judge who was on Obama’s short list for elevation to the Supreme Court.

DACA effectively amended deportation law, a presidential usurpation of legislative power. Obama imposed it unilaterally despite several times conceding that he lacked the authority to do so.

DACA is not even a regulation, much less a law (indeed, Congress declined to enact such a law). Obama decreed it by having his homeland-security secretary issue a policy memo.

Yet the judges would have you think it was engraved on tablets pried from the Ark of the Covenant. The court’s opinion often reads like a bad novel — as if jurisprudence has become Sonia Sotomayor’s world, and we’re just empathizing in it. Otherwise, it reads like a policy memo that borrows liberally from Obama’s policy memo. Bottom line: The Ninth Circuit says Trump did not provide a good enough explanation for changing Obama’s policy.

On the same day, an Obama judge in Montana issued an injunction blocking the Keystone Pipeline . This toed the Obama line, the former president having halted construction of the pipeline — which would transport oil from Canada to Nebraska — in obeisance to his green base and as an exhibition of American global leadership on climate change.

Trump ran against these policies in his presidential bid. He sought to convince the public that the promotion of economic development was essential to national prosperity and would not harm the environment. He urged voters that Obama’s conception of global leadership was to preen while developing countries ignored his greenhouse-gasbaggery and developed countries made commitments that were “aspirational” (translation: economically ruinous) and that they had no intention of trying to keep.

Like his colleagues on the Ninth Circuit, the Obama judge in Montana says Trump did not provide a good enough explanation for changing Obama’s policy. The administration is weighing an appeal. Did I mention that appeals from the District of Montana go to the Ninth Circuit?

The Trump administration has done a great job filling vacancies on the federal appellate courts, but there are still eleven slots open, and 111 open seats on the district courts. There is not going to be much legislating done with Democrats now controlling the House. So let’s use the time wisely. The Republican-controlled Senate, having increased its majority, must prioritize the conveyor-belt confirmation of Trump nominees.

If the courts are to be prevented from dictating an ideological agenda, rather than allowing the nation to govern itself, rule-of-law judges must be installed. If not, you can elect Republican presidents to govern, but you’ll be ruled by the Lawyer Left.

Has anyone heard of any interaction between acting AG Whitaker and Mueller? I haven’t heard a single thing. The Dems are fretting about it, of course, but they really have no power, even with control of the House.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Has anyone heard of any interaction between acting AG Whitaker and Mueller? I haven’t heard a single thing. The Dems are fretting about it, of course, but they really have no power, even with control of the House.

A bit early I think we will hear much more in the coming weeks. If Mueller is wrapping things up as we have been told there is not much to do with him. Let him produce his findings and take the battle from there if there is one. Mueller has nothing significant if he did we'd know about it 2 or 3 weeks before the mid terms.

Sundance on Conservative Tree House had a interesting piece and breakdown on who the next AG may be. I think we all are aware of the Conservative Tree House and how to find it so I won't bother to link but after reading his piece the more I'm begining to think Whitaker may be the best guy to keep in there.

My guess is Whitaker will want to make a splash in the swamp puddle if he wants to keep the job but it won't be splashing water on Mueller it will be on someone else. Maybe Hillary?

“A high-ranking Facebook executive was allegedly forced to resign after refusing to back down on his support for Donald Trump - it has been revealed.

Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey was said to have come under intense pressure from Facebook's leading figures after it emerged he had donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group during the 2016 Presidential election.

According to correspondence revealed by the Wall Street Journal, the revelation about his donation sparked a furore which saw him fired six months later.

Facebook higher-ups including founder Mark Zuckerberg himself were said to have attempted to pressgang Luckey into publicly supporting libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson…”

https://dailym.ai/2PNP8HF

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
“A high-ranking Facebook executive was allegedly forced to resign after refusing to back down on his support for Donald Trump - it has been revealed.

Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey was said to have come under intense pressure from Facebook's leading figures after it emerged he had donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group during the 2016 Presidential election.

According to correspondence revealed by the Wall Street Journal, the revelation about his donation sparked a furore which saw him fired six months later.

Facebook higher-ups including founder Mark Zuckerberg himself were said to have attempted to pressgang Luckey into publicly supporting libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson…”

https://dailym.ai/2PNP8HF

Now we're seeing first hand one of the ways Lenin and Stalin operated.

Well, Just heard on the radio that Acosta and CNN are suing the Whitehouse over the revocation of his press credentials. Ain't that precious...

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, Just heard on the radio that Acosta and CNN are suing the Whitehouse over the revocation of his press credentials.
Ain't that precious...

Let me guess... Freedom of Speech?

those two do realize that they're simply invited guests and have no real right to be there except by invite...if that were not the case then anyone could show up and claim the 1st Amendment and be given access

I think they'll lose, and hopefully Trump will recover attorneys fees from them

Joey D 11/12/18

Description

INTERVIEW - JOE DIGENOVA - legal analyst and former US Attorney to the District of Columbia

Acosta's suit is peanuts compared to the onslaught Rush just reported as queued up by the House Dimowits... 65 subpoenas for damn near everything from income taxes to how Trump folds his TP. These will of course be met with Trump's legal team. Annoying, expensive, distracting, and entirely unnecessary! Fucktards! Damn 'em!

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
Acosta's suit is peanuts compared to the onslaught Rush just reported as queued up by the House Dimowits... 65 subpoenas for damn near everything from income taxes to how Trump folds his TP. These will of course be met with Trump's legal team. Annoying, expensive, distracting, and entirely unnecessary! Fucktards! Damn 'em!

I thought he said 85 or so subpoenas. 85! All ready to go and set to go off at once. A subpoena canon!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
Acosta's suit is peanuts compared to the onslaught Rush just reported as queued up by the House Dimowits... 65 subpoenas for damn near everything from income taxes to how Trump folds his TP. These will of course be met with Trump's legal team. Annoying, expensive, distracting, and entirely unnecessary! Fucktards! Damn 'em!

I thought he said 85 or so subpoenas. 85! All ready to go and set to go off at once. A subpoena canon!

I may have misheard.... still this is yet another description

"Storm of Subpoenas"
https://www.breitbart.com/vide...ance-of-impeachment/

Left-leaning circuit courts have put the whammy on many of President Trump’s executive orders. Are any of those currently scheduled for SCOTUS review?

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