Heard Flake on a morning show say he’s worried about due process. But he’s all for a ban for people on the no-fly list.

I am saddened by the departure of Hope Hicks from the WH

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I am saddened by the departure of Hope Hicks from the WH

At least Geraldo is in her side!

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
Heard Flake on a morning show say he’s worried about due process. But he’s all for a ban for people on the no-fly list.

Flake's only guiding principle now is opposing the administration.

However, in this case I have to agree that due process is a concern.

As far as the alleged Jeff Sessions Mr. Magoo thing, all I can do is think back to the shot of him I saw at the SOTU.

He looked straight up befuddled, like a guy who was not sure where he was, or what he was really doing there. Are we really sure this guy is up to the job?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
At least Geraldo is in her side!

Sounds downright painful.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
Did I hear correctly? Did Trump tell a congressman that the reason the congressman didn't have a requirement to be 21 to purchase a rifle in his proposal was "because you're afraid of the NRA"...?

I think Trump is trying to play both sides at this point. He did just shut down Feinstein on another assault weapons ban. Basically told her you just need to work together to strengthen background checks, the usual bs from diane ”.... but, but ARs!!! Weapons of war !!!”

He just wanted to see if he could get Dianne's panties wet.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

He just wanted to see if he could get Dianne's panties wet.

I don't think even a rain dance from Sen.Fauxcahontas could do that, anymore.

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

A quote from our local news WDBJ, From the school/gun safety meeting Wednesday with President Trump And Representatives:

"Trump also suggested letting law enforcement confiscate a person's guns without a court order."

Your thoughts?

http://www.wdbj7.com/content/n...-bill-475527243.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...hite-lies-Trump.html

9 hour interview of Hope Hicks in House Intel Comm


DEM Swalwell asked if Trump had ever asked her to lie for him – leading to a break of 'five to ten minutes' while she conferred with her counsel.

Then she responded that ''I have never been asked to lie with respect to the Russia investigation.'

According to the accounts, Rooney then complained about the broad question, asking whether that would apply to a situation where Trump asked Hicks to tell someone he was busy, or to answer: 'Does this suit make me fat?'

During the back and forth, Swalwell and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California asked for a subpoena to try to compel testimony.

After talking to her lawyer, Hicks said she never 'knowingly' told lies for Trump, other than some 'white lies' about trivialities like whether he was available.

A New York Times report after her testimony highlighted the 'white lies' part of her comment.

quote:

Originally posted by rat2306:
I think President Trump is trying to get folks to show their cards..., the folks who don't think Feinstein is liberal enough any longer for example.

One would hope there is a method to his madness, however I understand the concern (about Gun Control) to those who take him literally.
It does make your eyes open but I have a hard time taking it seriously.
Can he really be promoting a lack of due process?
I agree with Para on not to over react.

Massachusetts man arrested in connection to letter containing white powder that was sent to Donald Trump Jr.'s home

Daniel Frisiello of Beverly, MA sent at least five letters containing white powder in last several weeks, U.S. Postal Inspection Service says, the first of which was addressed to Donald Trump Jr. and called him an "awful, awful person."

The substance turned out to be cornstarch

https://hotair.com/archives/20...ack-trump-jr-family/

Swalwell is likely an expert on lying.

None of those “white lies” she alluded to were likely offered under oath.

Lying is an indispensable part of civilization.

As 9th Circuit Judge (recently retired) Kozinski wrote in one 1st Amendment case:

quote:

Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying. We lie to protect our privacy (“No, I don’t live around here”); to avoid hurt feelings (“Friday is my study night”); to make others feel better (“Gee you’ve gotten skinny”);to avoid recriminations (“I only lost $10 at poker”); to prevent grief (“The doc says you’re getting better”); to maintain domestic tranquility (“She’s just a friend”); to avoid social stigma (“I just haven’t met the right woman”); for career advancement (“I’m sooo lucky to have a smart boss like you”); to avoid being lonely (“I love opera”); to eliminate a rival (“He has a boyfriend”); to achieve an objective (“But I love you so much”); to defeat an objective (“I’m allergic to latex”); to make an exit (“It’s not you, it’s me”); to delay the inevitable (“The check is in the mail”); to communicate displeasure (“There’s nothing wrong”); to get someone off your back (“I’ll call you about lunch”); to escape a nudnik (“My mother’s on the other line”); to namedrop (“We go way back”); to set up a surprise party (“I need help moving the piano”); to buy time (“I’m on my way”); to keep up appearances (“We’re not talking divorce”); to avoid taking out the trash (“My back hurts”); to duck an obligation (“I’ve got a headache”); to maintain a public image (“I go to church every Sunday”); to make a point (“Ich bin ein Berliner”); to save face (“I had too much to drink”); to humor (“Correct as usual, King Friday”); to avoid embarrassment (“That wasn’t me”); to curry favor (“I’ve read all your books”); to get a clerkship (“You’re the greatest living jurist”); to save a dollar (“I gave at the office”); or to maintain innocence (“There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop”).

Boy the left never quits and the hypocrisy is staggering.....

They are going after the first lady based on an 'inappropriate' visa process, while burying any attempt to acknowledge Obama wasn't qualified to be President.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.36ca6b48a7f6

In 2000, Melania Knauss, a Slovenian model dating Donald Trump, began petitioning the government for the right to permanently reside in the United States under a program reserved for people with “extraordinary ability.”

Knauss’s credentials included runway shows in Europe, a Camel cigarette billboard ad in Times Square and — in her biggest job at the time — a spot in the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, which featured her on the beach in a string bikini, hugging a six-foot inflatable whale.

In March 2001, she was granted a green card in the elite EB-1 program, which was designed for renowned academic researchers, multinational business executives or those in other fields, such as Olympic athletes and Oscar-winning actors, who demonstrated “sustained national and international acclaim.”

“We called it the Einstein visa,” said Bruce Morrison, a former Democratic congressman and chairman of the House subcommittee that wrote the Immigration Act of 1990 defining EB-1.

The year that Knauss — now first lady Melania Trump — got her legal residency, only five people from Slovenia received green cards under the EB-1 program, according to the State Department.

<snip>

The biggest one: how did she convince immigration authorities that she qualified for the EB-1 program?

Morrison, the former congressman and immigration expert, said that Melania Trump’s resume in 2001 seems “inconsistent” with the requirements of the visa.

To obtain an EB-1 under the extraordinary ability category, an immigrant has to provide evidence of a major award or meet at least three out of 10 criteria. Among them: evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, evidence of work displayed at artistic exhibitions and evidence of original contributions to a field.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

He just wanted to see if he could get Dianne's panties wet.

I'm sure that happens often for her.

Saw this on twitter:

Somehow, this conversation seems plausible to me:

Schiff: Find me a way to revoke Trump's charter. You live next door. Put Swalwell on it, he's a sneaky little shit just like you, right? The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
WalMart decided to join in the hysteria. No more gun or ammo sales to anyone under 21 and no sale of anything (airsoft or toys) that even look like an 'assault rifle'

Isn't this age discrimination by a corporation?

Not legally. Discrimination laws protect historically disadvantaged groups. In age cases, the statute applies to those over 40.

Just compare it to drinking laws or smoking laws--those are permissible situations where you make distinctions based on age, without it being "discrimination."

Yeah, but those are laws passed by the state. There is no law in this case prohibiting the sale to those under 21 (depending on the store's location). The store is the one deciding that those under 21 aren't worthy.

That doesn't matter from an age discrimination standpoint. People are protected from only from certain types of discrimination. This is not one of those situations. Like paying more for car insurance if you are under 25. Yes, younger people are treated differently, but there is no law against people simply being treated differently. (Except in certain limited circumstances, and buying guns or alcohol or cigarettes is not one of them.)

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
WalMart decided to join in the hysteria. No more gun or ammo sales to anyone under 21 and no sale of anything (airsoft or toys) that even look like an 'assault rifle'

Isn't this age discrimination by a corporation?

Not legally. Discrimination laws protect historically disadvantaged groups. In age cases, the statute applies to those over 40.

Just compare it to drinking laws or smoking laws--those are permissible situations where you make distinctions based on age, without it being "discrimination."

Yeah, but those are laws passed by the state. There is no law in this case prohibiting the sale to those under 21 (depending on the store's location). The store is the one deciding that those under 21 aren't worthy.

That doesn't matter from an age discrimination standpoint. People are protected from only from certain types of discrimination. This is not one of those situations. Like paying more for car insurance if you are under 25. Yes, younger people are treated differently, but there is no law against people simply being treated differently. (Except in certain limited circumstances, and buying guns or alcohol or cigarettes is not one of them.)

And to that, I would come back that driving a car isn't a right. The right to "bear arms" however is. How can a store deny a constitutional protected right simply because I happen to be below a certain age arbitrarily chosen by them?