Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 13:12:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 13:19:26 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 13:23:25 GMT
Trump seems extra, how-you-say, "agitated" this morning.
Perhaps Dr. Jackson (aka "the Candy man" - for dispensing drugs w/o rx) has curtailed his supply to something given the allegations of the past week.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Apr 26, 2018 13:31:55 GMT
Wow...that was unhinged. I watched the entire thing. He is off the rails. “I said I would stay away from the DOJ but that may change!” ” McCabe stoke 700,000 dollars in campaign money for his crooked wife. Who LOST BY THE WAY!” “I won the electoral college! Me! X 3. What a clusterfuck.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Apr 26, 2018 13:40:01 GMT
The spinner at her best
I wish the press would stand up and all walk out on her.
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Apr 26, 2018 14:41:22 GMT
John Lewis is my hero. He’s my sister’s congressman, and I’m so jealous. Such a great man.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 15:10:42 GMT
link You ok with this? From Science Magazine... “New rule could force EPA to ignore major human health studies”
Research looking at everything from links between air pollution and disease to the impact a pesticide has on children’s brains could be banned from consideration by environmental regulators under a new policy proposed yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).At an event at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., that was closed to the press, agency head Scott Pruitt touted the new policy as a way to increase transparency and enable the public to double-check research underpinning environmental regulations. The rule would require the agency to use only studies in which the underlying data are available for public scrutiny when formulating new “significant” regulations, which typically are regulations estimated to impose costs of $100 million or more. Specifically, the proposed rule says that EPA is seeking transparency for “the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling ‘pivotal regulatory science.’” The agency does not define pivotal regulatory science, but says it could include studies that “are critical to the calculation of a final regulatory standard or level, or to the quantified costs, benefits, risks, and other impacts on which a final regulation is based.” The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said, speaking to an audience that included conservative lawmakers and advocates who have questioned the science underpinning climate and health regulations. “Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.” But a number of leading epidemiologists studying the effects of pollution say the new regulations could pose a problem for existing and new studies aimed at teasing out connections between pollution and large populations. “I think this rule is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the science that’s available for the EPA to use in its decision-making,” says Peter Thorne, a toxicologist at The University of Iowa in Iowa City, and chairman of EPA’s science advisory board until late 2017, when his membership wasn’t renewed by Pruitt. The new proposal would effectively block the use of key scientific studies and “help big polluters avoid regulations that protect human health,” warned the American Thoracic Society, a New York City–based medical association representing physicians and scientists involved in respiratory disease. Other critics say EPA has failed to adequately calculate the costs of complying with its proposal, or clearly articulate its legal authority to issue the new rule, potentially opening the agency to a legal challenge. Privacy concerns
The problem, critics say, is that human epidemiological studies often rely on gathering reams of sensitive information from thousands of individuals, such as their medical history and personal habits, along with exactly where they live and work. Those details are usually guarded by confidentiality agreements that bar researchers from sharing data that would allow an individual to be identified. Existing studies could be bound by confidentiality agreements that make it impossible to give EPA the data it wants, Thorne says. And future researchers could have more trouble recruiting participants if they fear their information would be made public. “If those [confidentiality] documents say we will be required to release your private information to the U.S. government or to the public, [people] would be wise not to participate,” he says. In its proposed rule, EPA says it wants to make data publicly available “in a manner that honors legal and ethical obligations to reduce the risks of unauthorized disclosure and reidentification” of anonymous study subjects. The agency says sensitive data could be shielded by a variety of measures, including storing them at special federal data centers and restricting who has access to them. And it suggests that the transparency requirement could, in certain circumstances, be waived if not practical to implement. It does not provide an estimate of the cost of complying with the rule. In a press release the agency claimed the proposed provisions are consistent with data access requirements of major scientific journals include Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Science, along with many other journals, has recently adopted measures to encourage data sharing and increase transparency, Science Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Berg said in a prepared statement. Those measure can include requiring authors of published papers to deposit underlying data in a publicly available database. But he noted there are “exceptional circumstances, where data cannot be shared openly with all,” including cases where papers are based on data sets that include personal information. Journals will still publish those papers, but will tell researchers wishing to reanalyze or replicate the studies to negotiate directly with the authors to obtain the sensitive data. In general, researchers who share their data usually first strip information such as name, date of birth, or place of residence that would enable people to trace it back to an individual, says Joel Kaufman, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who is studying air pollution and heart disease. He’s now preparing a “limited” data set for the roughly 7000 participants in his study, so that other researchers can work with it. “That’s the right thing to do,” Kaufman says. “But I fear that that’s not enough for what the proponents of this regulation are trying to do, which is to get data that we know we can’t provide.”On the industry side, an American Chemistry Council (ACC) spokesperson says the Washington, D.C.–based trade group is looking at the new EPA rule, but has few detailed comments at this point. “Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights,” spokesperson Jon Corley said in a prepared statement. In the past, ACC has supported similar efforts to bar EPA from using nonpublic data in certain kinds of rulemakings, while noting that the agency often uses confidential or proprietary data provided by industry in doing its work. For example, industries fund extensive research into the health effects of chemicals, often through private laboratories that rely on animal testing. In internal EPA emails released by the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the agency’s deputy administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Nancy Beck, wrote that for a majority of industry studies, confidential business information “can be waived and the data can be made available.” (Beck was formerly a top official at the chemistry council.) But the EPA proposal also suggests such industry information could be exempted from the transparency rule. Long history
The new EPA proposal is the latest in a long-running campaign to let the public and regulated industries sift through the raw data of epidemiologists whose work could affect pollution regulations. In the 1990s, members of Congress pressed for legislation requiring scientists to disclose their raw scientific data, partly in response to a Harvard University study finding a correlation between more air pollution and lower life expectancy. Several times in recent years, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring public disclosure of data from any new studies used by EPA to write regulations, but the proposal never made it out of Congress. The champion of that bill, Representative Lamar Alexander (R–TN), flanked Pruitt at Tuesday’s unveiling of the new proposal, smiling. EPA will now accept public comments on the proposal for 30 days, then is expected to issue a final rule. Environmental groups and others have already said they expect to challenge the rule in court. Potential lines of attack, attorneys say, include claims that EPA has not met the letter of federal law in evaluating the rule’s costs and benefits, or explained which federal law has provided it with the authority to issue the new requirements.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 15:20:04 GMT
Walter Shaub...
“Pruitt has his fans on the committee who want to turn this hearing into a pep rally for deregulation, sending a powerful message that ethics rules don’t matter when you like the guy. Welcome to the Anything Goes Era.”
Bingo!
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Apr 26, 2018 15:43:30 GMT
A few good tweets about Trump's meltdown this morning..
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Apr 26, 2018 15:52:08 GMT
😂😂😂😂😂
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,070
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Apr 26, 2018 15:57:42 GMT
This is how dt treats people and US! With threats and retaliation....'I'll get you' attitude! 6 min ago Trump: Democratic senator who ran oversight on Jackson should have a "big price to pay"From CNN's Dan Merica President Trump says Sen. Jon Tester — who led the congressional oversight on Dr. Ronny Jackson’s now-failed nomination to lead the VA — should have a “big price to pay in Montana.”Tester is up for re-election in a state the President won by more than 20 points in 2016. The senator was the most public critic of Jackson, including interviews with CNN and NPR. “I think this is going to cause him a lot of problems in his state,” Trump said on Fox News Thursday morning. Earlier this week, Tester said Jackson was known as "the candy man" inside the White House, citing reports from individuals who raised concerns about his nomination. www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ronny-jackson-trump-va/h_cc5628ba6d1a69e36e2773e3b0a614a9God forbid anyone be looking out for the best interests of Veterans, instead of pissed “his guy” didn’t get the job right?
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Apr 26, 2018 16:05:23 GMT
I’m kind of surprised Mango Mussolini isn’t blaming Hillary. Everyone knows she’s controlling the Deep State behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 16:23:28 GMT
God forbid anyone be looking out for the best interests of Veterans, instead of pissed “his guy” didn’t get the job right? So true! It is reported that his new pick is political! Wonderful. Not sure who has been talking about privatizing the Va... Whoever, it should not be done!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 16:26:30 GMT
The US attorney is already using Trump's 'Fox & Friends' comments about Michael Cohen against himAllan Smith April 26, 2018 *President Donald Trump told the Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends" on Thursday that Michael Cohen, his longtime attorney, handled only a "tiny fraction" of his legal work. *Cohen is the focus of a federal criminal investigation. *The next hearing in his case is set for Thursday afternoon. * In a filing, the government used Trump's comments as evidence that few of the documents seized in a series of raids are likely to contain privileged information.During an interview on Thursday with the Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends," Trump said Cohen handled a "tiny, tiny fraction" of his "overall legal work."
In a filing later Thursday, the government cited the comments as evidence that "the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents."More at link: www.businessinsider.com/trump-michael-cohen-handled-tiny-fraction-of-my-legal-work-2018-4He is hanging himself! Higher higher PLease!!
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,070
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Apr 26, 2018 16:41:39 GMT
God forbid anyone be looking out for the best interests of Veterans, instead of pissed “his guy” didn’t get the job right? So true! It is reported that his new pick is political! Wonderful. Not sure who has been talking about privatizing the Va... Whoever, it should not be done! Unfortunately for him Shulkin was against the privatization efforts, hence he was fired for his ethical issues, while Mnuchin, Pruitt, Carson, Zeinke are still in their positions.
|
|
|
Post by vspindler on Apr 26, 2018 17:15:45 GMT
Do you think his lawyers (the ones he has left) called Fox this morning in a panic when they heard him talking? “Shut him up! Shut him up!” And the producers then frantically waving off air at the hosts to try to get them to try to change the topic.
I’m thinking there is much day drinking to be had today in New York and Washington. Lawyers toasting the huge gift they were given, and his lawyers drinking to forget that call.
In all seriousness, I was listening to a FB live broadcast this morning (I referenced her the other day) and she has been pointing out all week that when it is that quiet, something big is usually brewing. And that when a big story is about to drop the subject usually gets about 24 hours notice because they are given a chance to comment. Add to it that Trump’s biggest rants tent to correspond when there is something he wants to distract from, better buckle up for Friday in Trumpland!
Also interesting point about Cohen pleading the 5th. In a civil case, which he is pleading in, when you plead the 5th the judge/jury is actually allowed to take that as an admission that there was an illegal act. In a criminal case that is not the case...HOWEVER, if you plead the 5th in a civil case, in a later, criminal, case that prior assumption CAN be used. So in a criminal case (which we can pretty much determine will be a certainty) that is related to the same activity, the jury can consider that the civil plea is evidence of illegal behavior.
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Apr 26, 2018 17:27:56 GMT
Do you think his lawyers (the ones he has left) called Fox this morning in a panic when they heard him talking? “Shut him up! Shut him up!” And the producers then frantically waving off air at the hosts to try to get them to try to change the topic. I’m thinking there is much day drinking to be had today in New York and Washington. Lawyers toasting the huge gift they were given, and his lawyers drinking to forget that call. In all seriousness, I was listening to a FB live broadcast this morning (I referenced her the other day) and she has been pointing out all week that when it is that quiet, something big is usually brewing. And that when a big story is about to drop the subject usually gets about 24 hours notice because they are given a chance to comment. Add to it that Trump’s biggest rants tent to correspond when there is something he wants to distract from, better buckle up for Friday in Trumpland! Also interesting point about Cohen pleading the 5th. In a civil case, which he is pleading in, when you plead the 5th the judge/jury is actually allowed to take that as an admission that there was an illegal act. In a criminal case that is not the case...HOWEVER, if you plead the 5th in a civil case, in a later, criminal, case that prior assumption CAN be used. So in a criminal case (which we can pretty much determine will be a certainty) that is related to the same activity, the jury can consider that the civil plea is evidence of illegal behavior. What I took away from his Fox and Friends breakdown, was that by asserting that Cohen represented "a tiny" portion of his affairs, he just gave prosecutors a green light to full access of the seized files from Cohen's office. There was concern that those papers would contain privileged information, but Trump is clearly stating that's not the case. SDNY will probably file a new motion in light of this admission. I hope they get it. Cohen is entitled to plead the 5th in a civil case, while related criminal cases are pending. (And boy, I have a feeling that we haven't seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to criminal counts against him.) However, going by Trump's own words, this means he's a guilty slimeball. Kellyanne Conaway and Huckabee Sanders have also made similar public statements about those pleading the 5th as well, so the irony is kind of delicious. These aren't just crooks, they're stupid crooks.
|
|
|
Post by vspindler on Apr 26, 2018 17:31:05 GMT
. [/quote]What I took away from his Fox and Friends breakdown, was that by asserting that Cohen represented "a tiny" portion of his affairs, he just gave prosecutors a green light to full access of the seized files from Cohen's office. There was concern that those papers would contain privileged information, but Trump is clearly stating that's not the case. SDNY will probably file a new motion in light of this admission. I hope they get it.
Cohen is entitled to plead the 5th in a civil case, while related criminal cases are pending. (And boy, I have a feeling that we haven't seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to criminal counts against him.) However, going by Trump's own words, this means he's a guilty slimeball. Kellyanne Conaway and Huckabee Sanders have also made similar public statements about those pleading the 5th as well, so the irony is kind of delicious. These aren't just crooks, they're stupid crooks.[/quote]
Yep, that was the other important take away as well, and one the attorneys have apparently already sought to capitalize from.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 17:40:51 GMT
Senate has approved Pompeo... also Senate panel approves bill to protect special counsel
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 04/26/18 11:09 AM EDT The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday to protect special counsel Robert Mueller. In a 14-7 vote, the panel approved the bipartisan proposal that deeply divided Republicans on the committee. ** “We have a piece of legislation that I believe will stand the test of time and will also stand the test of scrutiny,” she said. The legislation now heads to the full Senate, where it faces entrenched opposition from key Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). “I'm the one who decides what we take to the floor, that's my responsibility as the majority leader, and we will not be having this on the floor of the Senate,” McConnell told Fox News earlier this month. ** The bill doesn't have the 60 votes necessary to pass the Senate, and has even less of a chance to pass the more conservative House. It also would be unlikely to win the two-thirds support needed to override a presidential veto. McConnell and most GOP senators say publicly that they believe Trump will ultimately decide not to fire Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected in Washington. They also argue the legislation isn't constitutional and, even if passed, would face a challenge in the courts. thehill.com/homenews/senate/384990-senate-panel-approves-bill-to-protect-special-counsel
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 26, 2018 17:44:27 GMT
Senate has approved Pompeo... While everyone is distracted by Jackson and Trump’s meltdown ... smoke and mirrors, folks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 17:49:02 GMT
MSNBC....
“WATCH: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt blames his staff for the decision to put a $43,000 phone booth in his office.
"I was not involved in the approval of $43,000 and if I'd known about it ... I would have refused it."
Yea right.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 17:54:32 GMT
Merge Farnhold? Is that his name? Your governor wants him to pay for the a special election this summer!! He has not repaid US, the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 17:56:06 GMT
MSNBC.... “WATCH: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt blames his staff for the decision to put a $43,000 phone booth in his office. "I was not involved in the approval of $43,000 and if I'd known about it ... I would have refused it." Yea right. They said he was going to pass the buck. And he has. He has read TWO threats he claims were made against his family. I would think they might be more personal then related to his job! Pruitt has also stated that the ethics charges are all lies!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 17:58:20 GMT
Just too much happening today all at once....... Special master named to review documents in Michael Cohen caseBY LYDIA WHEELER - 04/26/18 01:24 PM EDT The federal judge overseeing the case against President Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, on Thursday appointed a former federal judge to review the documents seized in a raid of his office and hotel room, according to multiple reports. Judge Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York appointed Barbara Jones — who served a 16-year term on the Manhattan’s federal court and is now a partner at law firm Bracewell — to serve as the “special master" and decide which of Cohen's materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and what can be reviewed by federal prosecutors, the The New York Post reported. The quick decision came after Wood received a letter Thursday morning from federal prosecutors in Manhattan withdrawing their objection to Cohen's request for a special master. Prosecutors had initially pushed for the use of a Justice Department "taint team" to perform the review, but cited new developments in changing their position. ** But, Khzami noted that Trump said in a Fox & Friends on Thursday that Cohen performs “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his overall legal work. Similarly, Hannity on Monday said in a tweet “Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees.” “These statements by two of Cohen’s three identified clients suggest that the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents, further supporting the importance of efficiency here,” Khzami said. More at link: thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/385027-special-master-named-to-review-documents-in-michael-cohen-case
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:31:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 18:15:57 GMT
Cynthia Nixon..
“This video was just sent to me from Syracuse showing Customs and Border Patrol intimidating people as they get on their buses and trains.
On my way right now to Syracuse to talk about this.”
So I watched the video. And this dude walking up and down the line of people waiting to get on the bus. Looking them over very carefully. He stopped by one woman who was not a “blue eyed blonde” and asked to see something. He walked up to the person taking the video, real close, and stared. Then walked away.
The guy was dressed a lot like the Navy seals on TV last night. Only thing missing was the rifle.
Last time I checked Syracuse was not at the Southern Border of this country.
This guy was really trying to intimidate these folks.
So we have come to this now under trump? Really?
🚫 #MAGA.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 18:39:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 26, 2018 19:18:44 GMT
Ronny Jackson has another problem looming............ He may not get that second star... He could lose a lot more... 4 hr 42 min ago Senators uncertain about promoting Ronny Jackson's military rankFrom CNN's Manu Raju Apr 26, 2018 Dr. Ronny Jackson is awaiting a promotion of his military rank, something that requires approval from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senators are uncertain they will support that yet. Sen. Lindsey Graham said he’s sure there will be an investigation into the allegations and said, “While I’m fully prepared” to support him based on his career “I want to hear more about these allegations.”Sen. Blumenthal said there needs to be a full inspector general investigation before there’s any promotion to two stars. www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ronny-jackson-trump-va/h_938d04c6e7ef93e3656978a05341546d
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Apr 26, 2018 19:27:36 GMT
Time to start new thread. But first, the below quote is not how I see this thread. “ I haven’t necessarily abandoned this thread, but, obviously, there are a few from the opposing side of the fence who can’t seem to respect this thread as a place for us to talk amongst ourselves. I can’t see the liberal catch-all thread unless I log out, but have conservatives or Trump supporters invaded that thread? Is there some sort of ‘payback’ going on that I can’t see?”
This thread was started and continues to be a thread that all are welcome to post their thoughts about the subjects in the title. That’s deal when you post on a public message board, all are welcome. If one wants to limit who posts on “their” thread then maybe they should look into starting a private group, members only, someplace where it’s allowed. From what I understand that can be done. Are there certain folks I wish would not post on threads I start? Absolutely. That can be said about anyone who starts a thread. But again this is a public message board and they have the right to post on whatever thread catches their fancy. It’s called choice. You know, it’s a thing us liberals like. Choice. 😀 If those who post on the thread do so with the intent to disrupt they will be called on it. I personally like to read other’s views/opinions about something. I may not agree with their opinion and may sit and grumble about it but I appreciate the fact they shared. It. Even if I am grumbling. But I will no longer be tolerant of those who try and push what they believe as facts with nothing to back it up. Yesterday I started reading a study that all that misinformation pushed by the Russian bots and other third parties did have an affect on 2016 election. The question was how much. But when you think trump won the electoral college by roughly 100,000 votes spread across three states one has to wonder was it enough so that trump won. So facts matter. There be will be little spats and there will be big spats I’m sure and I wish that wasn’t the case. But that’s what happens when people from different parts of the country and the world, with different backgrounds and beliefs engage. Especially when it comes to politics. But in all that back and forth, sometimes somewhat testy, one just might learn something. And when you get to be my age learning something new is a good thing. That is why I personally will never put up the “you aren’t welcome” sign on any thread I start. Ok, I’m officially off my soapbox on this subject. This bears repeating and being read again...so I quoted. Thanks @fred
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,070
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Apr 26, 2018 19:35:59 GMT
Ronny Jackson has another problem looming............ He may not get that second star... He could lose a lot more... 4 hr 42 min ago Senators uncertain about promoting Ronny Jackson's military rankFrom CNN's Manu Raju Apr 26, 2018 Dr. Ronny Jackson is awaiting a promotion of his military rank, something that requires approval from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senators are uncertain they will support that yet. Sen. Lindsey Graham said he’s sure there will be an investigation into the allegations and said, “While I’m fully prepared” to support him based on his career “I want to hear more about these allegations.”Sen. Blumenthal said there needs to be a full inspector general investigation before there’s any promotion to two stars. www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ronny-jackson-trump-va/h_938d04c6e7ef93e3656978a05341546dForget the promotion, if there’s truth to the bulk of the allegations he may lose the star he already has and be forced to retire at a reduced rank. And possible face criminal charges if there really are drug irregularities.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Apr 26, 2018 19:37:17 GMT
The federal judge overseeing the case against President Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, on Thursday appointed a former federal judge to review the documents seized in a raid of his office and hotel room, according to multiple reports. Judge Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York appointed Barbara Jones — who served a 16-year term on the Manhattan’s federal court and is now a partner at law firm Bracewell — to serve as the “special master" and decide which of Cohen's materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and what can be reviewed by federal prosecutors, the The New York Post reported. awww, you mean Trump won't get to review them himself to decide, like he wanted to?? Forget the promotion, if there’s truth to the bulk of the allegations he may lose the star he already has and be forced to retire at a reduced rank. And possible face criminal charges if there really are drug irregularities. ^^ I actually hope for THIS outcome, if the allegations are true. Last night, as I thought more about it, it made me even more mad. The fact that he would travel with the President, drink to excess and be passed out when someone needed first aid-- when it's his JOB specifically during that trip to be on-call in case the President has a medical emergency-- to me, is no different than a doctor being on duty at a hospital, or at the very least, being on call. I don't know if there's an actual rule in the medical field about drinking while on call -- perhaps a medical Pea can chime in-- but it certainly seems to fall far below the professional standards someone at his level should abide by, in my opinion.
|
|