One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Not logged in

You must be logged in to compose private messages. Please use the Login link at the top.

The Newest Discussions On Our Forum:
Another nail in your coffin, Feith.

T. E. Lawrence (you know him as Lawrence of Arabia) in "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom"---his memories of the Arab Revolt (without which there could probably never have been a state of Israel, had the region remained subject to the Ottoman's) and his part in it, mentioned the "joy-shooting" of the Arabs of the Hejaz: that celebratory shooting into the air that Arab men are wont to do when they are happy---a sort of informal 21 gun salute.

From "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom":

"Feisal [King Faisal I of Iraq], within, laboured day and night at his politics, in which so few of us could help. Outside, the crowd employed and diverted us with parades, joy-shooting, and marches of victory. Also there were accidents. Once a group, playing behind our tents, set off a seaplane bomb, dud relic of Boyle's capture of ..."

"I hurried down to where General Barrow was inspecting outposts in a car.
I told him we had spent the night in the town, and the shooting he heard was joy-firing. He was short with me; but I had little pity for him..."

Any person dealing with the people of the Middle East region would know that; any person that is, that is neither neo-con, nor one educated at any American university.

And Iraqis today do the same, Dougie, at weddings, or like celebrations.

Yet many of these "joy-shooters", men innocent of ANY wrong-doing, were imprisoned and tortured at Abu Ghraib, most likely at your request.

And by the way, I was informed of this atrocity by one who was there.
...continue reading this topic >>
Trump Could Fire Mueller, But He would Need An Excellent Reason, And It Would Be Obstruction
So what if Trump could fire Mueller if he can't do it without triggering an impeachment for obstruction?

Comey actually makes an excellent example of yes he could fire Comey, and he did, but he did not use his head as far as reasons to do so.

Had Trump took that on the first few weeks he was in office he'd have had full support for getting rid of him, the left was pretty annoyed with his role in the election. It's actually safe to say that being prosecuted for Logan act violations would have been popular.

Once the FBI was actively involved in looking into Russia's interference in our elections and the Trump campaign along with both the senate and house intelligence committees, firing Comey was trickier because of the appearance of making the investigation go away. Trump never will understand how inappropriate it is for the president to even talk to the FBI director about any aspect of the investigation, to say anything that would seem to be trying to influence that investigation in any way.

Trump has been ridiculously clumsy with questions about the investigation, and too many overt attempts to try to get the FBI and DOJ to do his bidding as far as going after people and letting them go when they are under scrutiny. He tweets his feelings and beliefs and what he thinks people in positions of authority "need to do". That coming from the president is exactly the same thing as picking up the phone and calling the person you are absolutely prohibited from calling and telling them to do that.

So then when Trump fires Comey and literally comes out in an interview and says that the american people wanted an end to the Russia thing, so he took action to end it by firing Comey, then is on video with Russian diplomats saying he made the Russian investigation go away, he cannot backtrack that and say he fired him for the thing he should have fired him for right away if it were such a big deal.

Then to have tried to convince Comey prior to being fired that Flynn was really a good guy, and Comey needed to get the FBI to leave him alone, firing him when he refused to do what he wanted is not going to fly. In the first place the white house and Trump personally had already been warned during the transition that there were some serious security issues with Flynn. Covering for people who should be immediately fired seems to be a pattern for Trump.

Back to Mueller, firing him would create a shitstorm of a constitutional crisis that would demand an impeachment. The timing would be really bad, because the whole case as Mueller has it right now would be in the public eye, leaked if that's what it takes. This would be the all consuming thing going into the mid terms, the case would be played out in the public eye, FOX against facts, and at some point FOX would cave and start covering the real facts, again right before the election. Public opinion would force the GOP to cave way before the election.

We are going to be looking at cold hard facts. Real estate transaction records, who bought property, who it was sold to, how much was made, and where the money was parked. Tax records will be used against those facts, and no amount of right wing spin can alter the fact that money laundering and tax evasion was a theme for Trump's whole inner circle. If he had involvements with Russian oligarchs that were illegal he will be caught cold with evidence. No amount of how dirty anyone involved in the investigation is is going to get Trump's inner circle and Trump out of this.

At this point if Dems get control of the house they will be able to take investigations into obstruction by the house intelligence committee and other republicans. Sessions could be charged with perjury because the statute of limitations is not up. I will admit though that it isn't Dems style to go after the past when there will be so much to figure out about what happened as far as Russian hacking.

All I can say is that Pence is vastly better than Trump as long as he doesn't have the weakness for Putin that Trump does. He can do anything as far as I'm concerned as long as he addresses the threats Russia poses as seriously as it should be.
...continue reading this topic >>
Trump’s Buyer’s Remorse on Gorsuch
Will Neil Gorsuch Flip on Trump?

On April 7, 2017, after the Senate voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, President Trump was nothing short of ebullient. In a prepared statement, Trump praised Gorsuch’s “judicial temperament, exceptional intellect and unparalleled integrity,” calling him “the perfect choice” to replace Antonin Scalia, the conservative firebrand who had died in February 2016.

At the time, Gorsuch’s appointment was widely seen as the first step in Trump’s campaign not only to remake the Supreme Court, but to push the entire federal bench hard to the right. Now, however, the president is incensed that Gorsuch is too liberal and not a reliable conservative, according to The Washington Post.

What accounts for Trump’s buyer’s remorse is Gorsuch’s vote last week in a case concerning the deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of a “crime of violence,” as set forth in a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the case—Sessions v. Dimaya—Gorsuch deserted his conservative counterparts on the Supreme Court to join with the panel’s liberals in a 5-4 ruling that struck down the provision as unconstitutionally vague.

Although the practical impact of the case remains to be seen, it represents a significant setback to the administration’s deportation policies. But does Gorsuch’s vote in the case also signal that he has changed his political stripes, or more critically, that Trump’s plan to stack the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts with right-wing ideologues is in jeopardy?

I think not. Both Trump’s fears and liberal hopes in this regard are overblown.

First and foremost, a single opinion does not a judicial tenure make. Prior to casting his ballot in Dimaya, Gorsuch had established himself as a fixture on the high tribunal’s regressive troika, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

As reported by the website, in his first three months on the court—from April to June 2017—Gorsuch voted in agreement with Thomas, long considered the most extreme outlier on the court, in every case that Gorsuch reviewed on the merits. He voted in line with Alito in 94 percent of his cases. On the other hand, he agreed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, regarded by many as the most liberal associate, at a 58.8 percent clip.

As I have noted before in this column, the raw voting data told only part of the story of Gorsuch’s first term on the court. His votes in particularly contentious cases, combined with his written orders and opinions, were even more revealing.

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer—an appeal from Missouri dealing with the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as applied to a church that had requested state funding to resurface the playground of a day care center—Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion that indicated he would be a staunch defender of “religious liberty.”

The majority opinion in the case, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that Missouri had violated the church’s free-exercise rights when it denied the funding application. Roberts took great care, however, to limit his holding to the use of public funds for a “secular purpose.”

In his concurrence, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch expressed “worry” that Roberts’ analysis was too restrictive, admonishing his colleagues that the Supreme Court must be guided by “general principles” that “do not permit discrimination against religious exercise—whether on the playground or anywhere else.” By contrast, Sotomayor, writing for herself and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, lamented that the decision weakened the “country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state.”

Gorsuch’s right-wing outlook also was evident in the court’s controversial per curiam (unsigned) ruling on the Trump administration’s second anti-Muslim travel ban, issued last June. The ruling temporarily permitted part of the ban to take effect. Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas voted to reinstate the ban in its entirety.

Gorsuch similarly left his calling card in his first term in the fields of gun rights and campaign finance law. In the latter, he dissented from the court’s refusal to review a 9th Circuit decision that upheld California’s restrictions on concealed weapons permits. On campaign finance, he joined Thomas to dissent from the court’s decision not to take up a challenge to one of the last prohibitions that still exists in federal election laws post-Citizens United, which bars corporations from making contributions from their general treasury funds directly to political parties.

Although there are no gun-rights cases on the court’s docket this term, the third version of the president’s travel ban is back, and it will be argued this week. The issue of “religious liberty” is also on the docket this term in a Colorado case involving a Christian baker who refuses to decorate and sell wedding cakes to gay and lesbian couples (Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).

In addition, the current term includes as yet undecided high-profile cases on political gerrymandering, redistricting, voting-roll purges, public-employee unions, class actions and abortion. Many observers anticipate 5-4 splits in such cases, with Gorsuch toeing the conservative line. Gorsuch did just that in a major immigration case (Jennings v. Rodriguez) decided in February by a 5-3 margin (Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself), in which the court ruled that detained immigrants awaiting deportation have no statutory right to periodic bail-review hearings.

None of this detracts from the independence Gorsuch displayed by breaking from the conservative ranks in the Dimaya case. Still, it’s vital not to get carried away by such a small sampling.

Gorsuch’s concurrence in Dimaya was entirely consistent with the reputation he earned during his career on the 10th Circuit as a Scalia-like “originalist” in the interpretation of constitutional law. The problem with the immigration act’s use of the term “crime of violence,” he reasoned, is that it was so vague, people and judges are forced to guess what it means. Both Gorsuch’s concurrence and the majority opinion, written by Kagan, were based on Johnson v. United States, a 2015 ruling in which the court, in an opinion by Scalia, struck down a similarly vague provision contained in the Armed Career Criminal Act.

“Vague laws,” Gorsuch began his concurrence, channeling his inner Scalia, “invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation [exile] or death.” Gorsuch also hastened to add, perhaps to assuage those who might see him as a political turncoat, that the deportation statutes still apply to immigrants convicted of murder, rape and other crimes, such as the sexual abuse of minors—which are clearly specified in the immigration act as deportable offenses.

If Gorsuch sticks to his originalist principles, he could well join the liberals in another important case—Carpenter v. United States—the court will resolve by the end of the present term on whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before seizing the historical cellphone records of criminal suspects.

Like Scalia, Gorsuch may occasionally go rogue in a few significant but essentially niche areas. That’s a good thing, both for liberals, and for the court as an institution. In general, however, Gorsuch will in all likelihood prove to be every bit as conservative as Scalia.

Trump’s histrionics aside, Gorsuch won’t upset the president’s plans for reconstituting either the Supreme Court or the rest of the federal judiciary. Trump is getting his advice on judicial appointments from both The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, and thus far, he has closely followed their suggestions.

According to Mother Jones magazine, during his first year in office, Trump handed out 69 judicial nominations. Of these nominees, 92 percent were white, 71 percent were male and 55 percent had Federalist Society affiliations. He has added to those totals since then, and will now get to name a replacement for Stephen Reinhardt, the 9th Circuit’s liberal stalwart, who died March 29.

The Supreme Court, of course, remains the grand prize. With the aging of the court—Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, Anthony Kennedy is 81 and Stephen Breyer is 79—Trump will probably get to make at least one more appointment to the nation’s most powerful judicial body this term or—perish the thought—next term, if he is re-elected.

When and if that happens, Gorsuch’s maverick concurrence in Dimaya will be long forgotten.

By: Bill Blum Contributor
...continue reading this topic >>
Townhall Cartoons 4-24-2018
Townhall Cartoons 4-24-2018

...continue reading this topic >>
A doppelganger is an unrelated person with a striking resemblance to another, this Spanish farmer sure looks like Trumps.

...continue reading this topic >>
Where are Obama’s 12 Muslim Brotherhood appointees ?
AIM4Truth Robert writes:

No one is following up on where the twelve Muslim brotherhood appointees by Obama ended up in March of 2012?

One of them completely rewrote the Army military operations manual.

I can imagine the others are still doing their dirty work and all are probably SES operatives. Can you research these guys?

Our reply: We are but a very small group of volunteers (retired professionals of various backgrounds) so we are unable to track down all the crime in the world.

That should be the job of the Department of Justice if it weren't so corrupt with 500 SES attorneys and the AG Enemy of the State Jeff Sessions there to sabotage any truth revelation in order to protect their contracts with SERCO, the graft of the Crown Agents, and the rule of America by the British Monarchy.

We research leads that we think can be the most instrumental in dismantling this global corruption.

Our websites are filled with citizen intelligence reports from who was really behind 9-11 to how social media was stolen from Leader Technologies to weaponize the internet against citizens of the world.

We hope that the AIM global community of truth seekers will research situations that we can't get to and send them our way for posting. We need independent researchers, content creators, and watchpeople all around the world to join the NEW WORLD AWAKENING...
...continue reading this topic >>
"Just The Facts"...
Like Joe Friday of Dragnet; "Just The Facts!"

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A Grand Jury had been empaneled.

Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

Hmmm, now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002?

Bet you can’t guess.

No other than James Comey.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS?

Your friend and mine, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?

No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this timeframe???

I know, it’s a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances, Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common?

They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

Now that’s just a coincidence, right?

Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.

Let’s fast forward to 2009.

James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server by the way.

The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.

Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, the People got absolutely nothing out of it.

However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Ok, no big deal right?

Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

Guess who was the FBI Director during this timeframe?

Yep, Robert Mueller.

He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland.

No other than, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess what happened to the informant?

The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved?

~145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?

No other than, Lois Lerner.

Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?

Let’s fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law.

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
...continue reading this topic >>
FBI was with Her !
At what point of a smoking gun does Trump and the AG begin arresting them ?

The following agencies must be dismantled...

...continue reading this topic >>
Trump has Constitutional Authority to Fire Mueller - Here’s why
Trump has the constitutional authority to fire Mueller — Here’s why
April 22, 2018 by True Pundit Staff

It would be unconstitutional for Congress to prevent President Trump from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

But under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch.

Senators Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Chris Coons, D-Del., are nevertheless pressing ahead to seek passage of legislation they are sponsoring called the Special Counsel Integrity Act. Under this bill, only the attorney general could discipline or remove a special counsel.

But despite denials by its proponents, this bill violates basic constitutional principles. Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is given the authority to appoint – with the approval of the Senate – “Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”

Congress is also allowed, by law, to “vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

What this means is that the president staffs the executive branch with more than 4,000 political appointees. Only about a quarter of these have to be approved by the Senate. The rest are “inferior” officers who can be appointed directly by the president or other top executive branch officials, such as Cabinet secretaries.

All of these officials – with the exception of judges and certain other officers (for example, the heads of federal agencies such as the Federal Election Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission) serve at the pleasure of the president. That means they can be removed by the president for any reason or no reason.
...continue reading this topic >>
Do you suppose Bill Clinton asked Monica this????

...continue reading this topic >>
For more, check out Active Topics page.
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.