The Trump Presidency

For those that forgot, Sally Yates is the former Asst Attny General fired for calling Trumps travel ban hokum

Sally Yates‏Verified account @SallyQYates Oct 24

We can’t let POTUS’s complete indifference to truth become ours. Constant barrage may be exhausting, but normalizing it is too dangerous.

...................................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Yates

Acting United States Attorney General

In January 2017, according to a Justice Department spokesman, Yates accepted a request from the incoming Trump administration to serve as Acting Attorney General, beginning on January 20, 2017, and until the successor for Attorney General Lynch would be confirmed by the United States Senate.[20]

In late January, Yates warned the Trump administration that National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn had not been truthful about his contacts with Russia related to sanctions and that he was vulnerable to blackmail by Russian intelligence. The Washington Post publicly reported Yates's warning on February 13, 2017, and within hours Flynn resigned.[21][22]

In a New York Times editorial published on July 28, 2017, Yates expressed concern about Trump's political influence on the Justice Department, writing "President Trump’s actions appear aimed at destroying the fundamental independence of the Justice Department. […] Its investigations and prosecutions must be conducted free from any political interference or influence. […] The very foundation of our justice system — the rule of law — depends on it."[23]
Letter from Sally Yates explaining her view of Executive Order 13769

On January 30, Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend Trump's executive order on travel and immigration, because she was not convinced it was lawful.[24] Her decision came after several federal courts had issued stays on various parts of the order to stop their implementation, and many U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents did not follow the stays.[25] In a letter to DOJ staff, she wrote:

" At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful...I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. For as long as I am the acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of th[is] executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.[26]"

In response to her decision not to defend the order, former Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted that he trusted her judgmen
 
shockingly, this POS is not taking responsibility for the mission in Niger that the 4 soldiers died in. he's simply not Commander in Chief material. can't take the slightest bit of criticism or responsibility. we're going to be looked down on for a long time after this ****show is over.
 
Hawk said:
There's nothing wrong with what Hillary did. Lying about it (and funneling monies) is another story - and not at all surprising.

What's so rich here, to me, is that the moral high ground is lost and that the dossier is never going to be considered in an unbiased light again.
Click to expand...

Rich, and true, and most probably irrelevant.
 
Joy Reid‏Verified account @JoyAnnReid Oct 24

“Who paid for the Steele dossier” is the new “but her emails.”
 
Hawk said:
There's nothing wrong with what Hillary did. Lying about it (and funneling monies) is another story - and not at all surprising.

What's so rich here, to me, is that the moral high ground is lost and that the dossier is never going to be considered in an unbiased light again.
Click to expand...

Yep. Unless we get to see the pee tape, proving that this really is a reality show administration.
 
bravesnumberone said:
I think both are pretty important. Any bets as to who the Republican was? Bush? Cruz?
Click to expand...

I think the most pertinent question is "to what degree was the investigation predicated on the dossier?" There are some pretty wild claims floating around about this, which seem specious to me. Second question is "what information in the dossier has been confirmed with a high level of confidence?" Answering those questions honestly is the first step to ascribing importance to any questions about its provenance or funding.

But as for your question, I'd lean towards Bush.
 
https://apnews.com/32ba75f6e70647cf...behind-Trump-and-his-agenda-after-mini-revolt

Senators rally behind Trump and his agenda after mini-revolt

“Maybe we do better by having some of the people who just don’t like him leave, and replace them with somebody else,” Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma told The Associated Press. “And I think that’s what’s happening.”
....
“You know my answer. I’m focused on getting stuff done,” said Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, when asked about his colleagues’ criticisms of Trump. “He was elected. I disagree with him fairly frequently, and I do so publicly and privately. But I want to work with him to get stuff done.”

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina refused to discuss Trump’s standing.

“I am just not going to engage in that conversation at all. There’s no benefit to anyone,” Scott said. “At the end of the day the goal is for us to keep the focus on the American people and tax reform that will help them keep more of their money.”

Sen. David Perdue of Georgia was even more direct. “We’re all professionals here. These two guys can say and do what they want to do. But right now, we’ve got a bigger issue, and the bigger issue is to get this tax bill done,” he said.
 
Getting stuff done !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They gutted Medicare and Medicaid to give their donors tax breaks.
What else is "getting stuff done "

Now what ? Jobs - infrastructure - what else is on the agenda
oh yeah, repeal and replace -- maybe this time
Maybe the "wall"

One more Trump campaign promise dies

Deplorable
what ever happened to "lock her up on the first day "
 
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-admit-between-zero-and-one-refugees-into-the

Kelly said he'd prefer to admit between zero and one refugees into the US each year: report

White House chief of staff John Kelly reportedly told other members of the Trump administration that if it were up to him the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. would be between zero and one.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Kelly made the comment while the administration debated lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the country.

President Trump eventually decided to lower the refugee cap to 45,000, the lowest levels since the Reagan administration, when the Refugee Act was passed. Officials said at the time that this number represents the maximum number of refugees possible under the administration's new vetting standards.
 
Cut 1.5 trillion from Medicare etc

To give a 1 trillion tax cut to the 1%

So proud of this country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top