Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 16:54:43 GMT
Brady Dennis....
”The Trump administration has been reluctant to use its power to protect species threatened with extinction, as scientists warn of deepening biodiversity crisis. @dino_grandoni in The Energy 202:”
Well you can’t make a buck protecting threaten species from extinction so of course trump and company are not using its power to protect these species. No one should be surprised by that.
|
|
|
Post by kmcginn on May 7, 2019 17:35:44 GMT
Isn't McGahn a private citizen now? HTH can Trump tell him what he can and cannot do or who he can talk to? And if he doesn't comply, he could go to jail since he's a private citizen!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 7, 2019 17:48:47 GMT
And seriously, is he beginning to set the stage for not leaving if he loses the 2020 election? Is this because Nancy Pelosi said the Dems have to win by a wide margin or Trump will contest a close election? Does he even know the US is not Extended Stay America? Bill Maher used to say, “He’s not gonna leave, folks, you know that, right?” I used to just laugh. I’m not so sure anymore that it’s a joke. I said that a while ago.......
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 7, 2019 19:11:40 GMT
Isn't McGahn a private citizen now? HTH can Trump tell him what he can and cannot do or who he can talk to? And if he doesn't comply, he could go to jail since he's a private citizen! because he was WH attorney during the time period they want to talk to him about. I heard a MSNBC discussion about it this morning or last night--- there is a possibility that they could assert a very NARROW type of executive privilege, because McGahn's interviews with the Mueller team was were still within the executive branch. Even though he testified, executive privilege still may apply. Asking him to testify now to Congress is OUTSIDE the Executive Branch. That's their justification- I think. Not sure if it will hold water, though. (I sincerely hope not.)
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on May 7, 2019 19:26:14 GMT
I said that a while ago....... I am not buying that he will not leave if not re-elected. He can contest it, and there can be a recount. But if the recount shows hat he did lose, even by 2 votes, he will have to get his ass out of the White House. Because come January 20th, the new president will be sworn in at inauguration, and secret service will forcibly remove him from office if need be. This country will not stand for a dictator. Even the ass kissing republicans who simply adore trump will not have it. Sadly, I think you're wrong. I think Republicans and Trump loyalists would support him, with violence, if it came to this.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,477
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on May 7, 2019 19:29:25 GMT
Slighty off topic for the current days news: Has anyone listened to the podcast "It Could Happen Here"? My DS told me to listen. The host Robert Evans discusses the possibility of a 2nd Civil War. I'm 3 episodes in and he's weaving a pretty dark tale. Not that I think it WILL happen, but it does seem that is COULD.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on May 7, 2019 19:43:31 GMT
Wow really? I seriously cannot imagine going to war against my neighbors and friends over stupid donald trump. Like really, I cannot fathom picking up a gun (or other weapon) and killing people because they hold different beliefs than me.
Of course, i have a hard time understanding how people got to that point during the actual civil war.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,477
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on May 7, 2019 19:56:01 GMT
Wow really? I seriously cannot imagine going to war against my neighbors and friends over stupid donald trump. Like really, I cannot fathom picking up a gun (or other weapon) and killing people because they hold different beliefs than me. Of course, i have a hard time understanding how people got to that point during the actual civil war. We don't want to imagine it, but I also don't think it can't happen given the groups that have already stood off against the government and the chasm between ideologies. If there were a way for the rural voter to understand they have way more in common with their urban counterparts than the super rich GOP leaders who are feeding them a load of BS, we'd come closer to bridging the gap rather than perpetuating falsehoods.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 20:10:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 21:37:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 21:39:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on May 7, 2019 22:07:33 GMT
"It's worth asking the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they testify before Congress in coming months, to affirm that they understand that and would act consistently with it," wrote Joshua Geltzer, a former deputy legal adviser for the National Security Council, in a recent piece for CNN. There hasn't been a Secretary of Defense for four months, although we are till at was with 3 countries, and currently at a threat status with Venezuela and Iran. And a Secretary of State (Pompeao) who can't remember what statements he makes from one day to the next, and a Security Advisor (John Bolton) who would like nothing more than war with everyone. But why worry about those details.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 7, 2019 22:17:03 GMT
There hasn't been a Secretary of Defense for four months, although we are till at was with 3 countries, and currently at a threat status with Venezuela and Iran Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan..
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,587
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on May 7, 2019 22:23:25 GMT
And let's not forget...he regularly says that he "the most transparent president in history."
Gag me with a pitchfork.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 23:20:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 23:21:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 0:39:33 GMT
Reuters....
“U.S. to levy tariff on imported Mexican tomatoes in trade spat”
”WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Commerce Department said on Tuesday it will begin imposing a 17.5 percent tariff on imported Mexican tomatoes, but said it is optimistic that a deal can be reached to extend a 2013 agreement that suspended a U.S. anti-dumping investigation.
“The Department of Commerce remains committed to ensuring that American domestic industries are protected from unfair trading practices,” Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross said in a statement. "We remain optimistic that there will be a negotiated solution."
The tariff will go into effect in about a week.”
Which means the American People will pay more for tomatoes. More winning.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 8, 2019 1:35:38 GMT
I won't be paying.... Those that have the funds will be eating tomatoes.
|
|
|
Post by chlerbie on May 8, 2019 2:29:54 GMT
He's the greatest at losing money!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 8, 2019 2:52:20 GMT
DOJ tells House Judiciary to cancel contempt vote, will ask Trump to invoke executive privilegeBY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 05/07/19 10:44 PM EDT The Justice Department said in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that it would invoke executive privilege over the Mueller report if the panel went through with its threat to vote on whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. “In the face of the Committee’s threatened contempt vote, the Attorney General will be compelled to request that the President invoke executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to the subpoena,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in a Tuesday letter to Nadler, which The Hill obtained. “I hereby request that the Committee hold the subpoena in abeyance and delay any vote on whether to recommend a citation of contempt for non-compliance with the subpoena, pending the President’s termination of this question,” he added. A committee aide told The Hill that Nadler plans to go forward with the contempt proceedings on Wednesday. The letter from Justice represents an escalation in the battle over access to redacted information that intensified after special counsel Robert Mueller released his long-awaited report on Russian election interference last month. thehill.com/policy/national-security/442635-doj-tells-house-judiciary-to-cancel-contempt-vote-or-it-will-askAnd what is to stop dt from invoking executive privilege next week or whenever.... OR is AG making threats to obstruct justice?
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
Jun 28, 2014 14:32:59 GMT
|
Post by suzastampin on May 8, 2019 4:11:19 GMT
Uh oh...I see a Tweet storm coming. NY Times gets their hands on 10 years of tax info but not his actual tax returns. Here’s the story. NY Times
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 4:45:36 GMT
Washington Post..
“It’s time to start impeachment hearings. Today.”
“If Donald Trump weren’t president, he’d probably be in jail.
That’s the view of a bipartisan group of hundreds of former federal prosecutors, who have signed an open letter stating that Trump’s conduct would warrant criminal obstruction of justice charges if he lived anywhere except in the White House.
And yet, somehow, the accepted wisdom is that beginning impeachment hearings is not worth the risk. That argument is based on three assumptions. First, that impeachment will make Trump more popular. Second, that impeachment is worthwhile only if it actually ends with removing a president from office. And third, that Trump will lose in 2020, so voters, rather than Congress, can deliver the consequences that he deserves.
All three of those assumptions are shaky. Few Americans have actually read the Mueller report, and walking the country through all the damning material in high-profile public hearings has the potential to hurt Trump far more than the Democrats in Congress. Moreover, impeachment isn’t just a tool to remove a president — it’s also a way to mark a presidency with historic disapproval, thereby deterring similar conduct for future presidents. And finally, though Trump’s poll numbers are abysmal now, it’s entirely possible that he could get reelected in 2020.
If he wins reelection without even enduring so much as an impeachment hearing, then that will encourage future presidents to commit corrupt or criminal acts. After all, Trump will have gotten away with it “Scott Free.”
Impeachment hearings should therefore begin immediately to preserve the rule of law and protect democracy.
The brightest dividing line between democratic republics and authoritarian regimes is the rule of law. These days, just about every tinpot despot holds sham elections, so what separates dictatorship from democracy isn’t just voting. It’s the rule of law that gives meaning to democratic institutions. Without it, democracy is a mirage. And in functioning democracies, the idea that “nobody is above the law” isn’t just a slogan.
And yet, Trump has almost certainly committed serious crimes without any consequences. The Justice Department called him “Individual-1” in court filings that implicated Trump in a criminal conspiracy. Personal checks signed by Trump as hush-money reimbursement payments constitute physical evidence that the conspiracy continued into the White House.
The New York Times published convincing evidence that Trump engaged in widespread criminal tax fraud over decades — fraud that would land anyone else in jail.
But there is also convincing evidence that Trump committed crimes to try to protect himself, a direct and dangerous challenge to rule of law. Although special counsel Robert S. Mueller III declined to charge Trump with crimes himself, he did outline 10 instances of obstruction of justice, several of which would normally lead to indictments. The report shows that Trump tried to fire Mueller, tried to shut down the investigation and tried to abuse his authority to wield the law as a weapon against his political adversaries.
So here’s a question for congressional leaders: Precisely how many crimes does someone have to commit before impeachment hearings are warranted? Does the person in question get a pass if it’s three or fewer? Was there some clause in the Constitution that I missed that says it’s okay for the president to direct a criminal conspiracy in certain circumstances? Is there a Federalist Paper that says the president can commit tax fraud so long as it was years ago, or that obstruction of justice is fair game so long as it happens on Twitter?
To oppose impeachment hearings now, you have to believe that the president allegedly engaging in three separate categories of criminal acts isn’t serious enough to even consider impeachment. Really?
Is that the precedent we want to set? If Trump does not face impeachment hearings, then what are the consequences for his alleged criminal behavior and his blatant attempts to subvert rule of law? The answer, unfortunately, is that there would be none.
And beyond the alleged crimes, it’s also not a bad idea to set a new precedent: that presidents get impeached if they actively encourage foreign attacks on U.S. elections or refuse to protect future elections from those attacks. When the Kremlin attacked our democratic process, Trump welcomed the assault, promoted it, tried to cover it up by blaming it on others and then attempted to subvert an investigation aimed at exposing the culprits. Last week, Trump even called it a “hoax” in a conversation with the chief perpetrator of the attack, Vladimir Putin. Are Republicans comfortable with setting the precedent that such behavior is acceptable?
Congress has a duty to act. Legislators should at least consider removing a president who threatens rule of law, violates it himself and actually encourages foreign attacks on our democratic process. Even if House Democrats decide not to impeach him or Senate Republicans vote to keep him in office, there will be a clear marker for future presidents: Committing crimes, subverting rule of law and welcoming foreign attacks on the democratic system are all unacceptable — and will result in your presidency forever being marked by a shameful asterisk.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 4:55:45 GMT
linkJennifer Jacobs... ”NEWS: The Trump admin may alter the way it determines the national poverty threshold. Could put Americans living on the margins at risk of losing access to welfare programs. Eagle eye on budget staff’s regulatory filings by @justinsink.” From Bloomberg News... “Trump May Redefine Poverty, Cutting Americans From Welfare Rolls”From the article.. “The Trump administration may alter the way it determines the national poverty threshold, putting Americans living on the margins at risk of losing access to welfare programs. The possible move would involve changing how inflation is calculated in the “official poverty measure,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a regulatory filing on Monday. The formula has been used for decades to determine whether people qualify for certain federal programs and benefits. The measure, first set in the 1960s, is calculated at three times the cost of a minimum food diet and adjusted every year as prices rise. In 2018, a family of four making no more than $25,900 was considered impoverished. The figure determines eligibility for a wide swath of federal, state, and non-profit programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. By changing the index the government uses to calculate how much the cost of living rises or falls, the poverty level could rise at a slower rate. One proposal the Office of Management and Budget suggested in the filing is to shift to so-called chained CPI, which regularly shows a slower pace of price gains than traditional measures. Chained CPI shows slower inflation growth because it assumes consumers will substitute less expensive items when prices for specific individual goods increase significantly. Whoever came up with this theory is certainly not paying attention to the real world. Less expensive food equals less food. Less expensive housing equals living in one’s car or on the street. Less expensive health care means no health care.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 5:00:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 5:02:46 GMT
Nary a peep from the "fiscal conservatives"....
but try to use deficit spending to help the poor and the blood will pour from your ears after the "fiscal conservatives" have pierced your eardrums w/their shrieks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 5:13:43 GMT
Ya think?!?!
And anyone except those corrupt GOP party-over-country traitors WOULD UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THAT!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 12:23:21 GMT
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on May 8, 2019 12:27:25 GMT
I'm actually kind of impressed. After always telling us that he was the best at everything, we finally find out that he truly is the best at something - losing money.
Seriously, the amount he's lost is impressive - like you could go into a competition to see who could lose the most money fastest and he would win, except he wasn't really trying to lose money.
He is the absolute worst businessman in America - literally. He's worse than every single one of us Peas. He's worse than that guy sleeping in a doorway downtown. He's worse at managing money and making a profit than every single business owner who has gone out of business. He has less money than every single American who has had to declare bankruptcy because of medical debt. He is literally the very, very worst person when it comes to money. And he wants to run America like he runs his businesses.
The people who still support him because "he's a rich man - he knows how to do business things and he's obviously successful because he's rich" - I'll put it simply. You got conned. He's not a rich man, he's a con man. If you believed that he was smart and successful before, well - he's a con man, that's what he does. He tricks people into trusting him, and you fell for it. But if you still believe that he's a rich man and successful and worthy of your support because of his business success - you're either an idiot, or you really support him for other reasons you just don't want people to know about and his 'success' at being a businessman was just the excuse you use to cover up those other reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 12:46:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 3, 2024 2:16:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 13:19:40 GMT
trump...
“The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come....”
”Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier) are now coming to the U.S. to make a deal. We’ll see, but I am very happy with over $100 Billion a year in Tariffs filling U.S. coffers...great for U.S., not good for China!”
Reuters...
”JUST IN: U.S. raises tariffs on Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports”
”MORE: Tariff increase on Chinese imports will take effect on May 10”
|
|