Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

williatw
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:58 am

In the wake of Robert Mueller's comical near meltdown during his testimony this is added good news:



Supreme Court allows Trump to use disputed military funds for border wall

Key Points



The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to transfer billions of dollars of military funding in order to construct hundreds of miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico.
The funding transfer was challenged by the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club and a border area advocacy group in February, shortly after Trump announced he would move forward with plans to construct the wall despite opposition from Congress.
The fight over border wall funding sparked the longest federal government shutdown in history.


Image

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to transfer billions of dollars of military funding in order to construct hundreds of miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico.

The funding transfer was challenged by the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club and a border area advocacy group in February, shortly after Trump announced he would move forward with plans to construct the wall despite opposition from Congress. The funding had been frozen per lower courts’ decisions.


The country’s highest court voted 5-4 to allow the funding transfer, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented in part, saying he would approve the transfer of funds but would not have construction of the wall begin just yet.

A brief order explaining the court’s decision said the government “made a sufficient showing” that the groups challenging the decision did not have grounds to bring a lawsuit.

Trump praised the court’s decision in a tweet Friday, calling it a victory for “border security and the rule of law.”

The fight over border wall funding sparked the longest federal government shutdown in history. Congress ultimately allocated about $1.4 billion in border wall funding to be deployed in Texas, far short of the $6 billion the administration sought.




Trump subsequently declared a national emergency at the southern borer and claimed that the declaration would make available the full $6 billion, including $2.5 billion transferred from the Department of Defense.

Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition challenged the $2.5 billion transfer, alleging that construction of the wall would cause environmental harm and permit the president to spend money denied to him by lawmakers.

A federal district court in California blocked the funds transfer in June. District Judge Haywood Gillium wrote that Congress “struck what it considered to be the proper balance — in the public’s interest — by making available only $1.375 billion in funding.”

The Justice Department asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the lower court’s order, but it refused to do so, voting to reject the administration in early July by a vote of 2-1.

On July 12, the administration brought its case to the Supreme Court. In a filing with the justices, Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that the wall funding is necessary “to stanch the flow of illegal drugs across the southern border.”

Those concerns outweigh “whatever aesthetic and recreational injuries respondents and their members may incur” if the wall is constructed, Francisco wrote.

Breyer, in a written opinion published Friday, said construction of the border wall would “cause irreparable harm to the environment,” but that denying the transfer of funding would constitute a final judgement on the matter. Breyer wrote:


“If we instead deny the stay, however, it is the Government that may be irreparably harmed. The Government has represented that, if it is unable to finalize the contracts by September 30, then the funds at issue will be returned to the Treasury and the injunction will have operated, in effect, as a final judgment. ... I can therefore find no justification for granting the stay in full, as the majority does.”



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/26/supreme ... -wall.html

williatw
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:30 am

williatw wrote:In the wake of Robert Mueller's comical near meltdown during his testimony...




WaPo: House Dems grudgingly admit Mueller stunt backfired — big time


Image

Mueller’s six hours of testimony did not help their case, many Democrats said privately. Some wondered whether they had miscalculated in focusing so much on the former FBI director and less on subpoenaing witnesses in Mueller’s report and asking the courts to force them to testify.

“I didn’t see anything amazing. I mean, did you?” said centrist Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.). “He looked tired.”

Among Democrats, perhaps the most disappointed in Mueller’s performance were members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, who questioned the former special counsel, according to conversations with several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly. Many felt blindsided that no one warned them how much Mueller had aged — and regretful that they had forced a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime civil servant into testifying when he was so reluctant in the first place.

“I was beyond shocked,” one lawmaker said of Mueller’s occasional confusion and seeming unfamiliarity with details of the report.



Just how much were they “blindsided”? The New York Times had a report later that same evening discussing how Mueller had not been, shall we say, immersed in the day to day business of his special counsel office. According to the report, aides started asking questions about Mueller’s energy and ability almost from the start, as well as his decision to delegate most of his inherent authority to deputies. Mueller’s condition might not have been common knowledge, but the special counsel office was under the purview of the House Judiciary Committee as part of its oversight of the Department of Justice. Are we to believe that Jerrold Nadler never once checked in on the office’s operation, including whether Mueller was an engaged special counsel?



https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrisse ... -big-time/

williatw
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:57 am

Rep. Gohmert grills Mueller: Did you know Strzok hated Trump?

Published on Jul 24, 2019


Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert questions former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on his relationship with James Comey and the people he chose to hire to his team. #FoxNews


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsPsfrkZxiE


Most interesting part starts at approx. the 4 minute mark.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests