Society The Donald J. Trump Show - 4 more years editions

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Freeloading Rusty

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588
D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath
D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.


The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.


But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health.

The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges “unprecedented constitutional violations” by Trump. The suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the president “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors” and has undermined the integrity of the U.S. political system.

“Fundamental to a President’s fidelity to [faithfully execute his oath of office] is the Constitution’s demand that the President ... disentangle his private finances from those of domestic and foreign powers. Never before has a President acted with such disregard for this constitutional prescription.”
 
Freeloading Rusty

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588
Senate Approves News Sanctions On Russia For Election Meddling: The Senate almost unanimously approved new sanctions on Russia for its interference in the most recent presidential election. The bill also puts a process in place for Congress to review any attempt by Donald Trump to amend the sanctions.

Staff Steps In To Stop Trump From Firing Russia Investigator: The New York Times reports that President Trump's staff had to talk Trump off the ledge of firing special counsel Robert Mueller, who has been tasked with investigating the Trump campaign's connections to Russia. Trump reportedly has become angered by right-wing coverage of Mueller that says he is close to former FBI Director James Comey.

Nearly 200 Congressional Democrats To File Suit Against Trump:Congressional Democrats are suing President Trump for violating the emoluments clause. The congressmen say that Trump is required to get their approval before he receives gifts, which they say he has not even though he has received diplomatic business at his hotels.
 
Freeloading Rusty

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588
Trump's FBI Nominee Tried To Hide Connections To Russian Case: President Trump's nominee for FBI Director, Christopher Wray, represented an American energy executive being prosecuted by the Russian government in 2006, but removed the case from his law firm biography in 2017, CNN reports. A spokeswoman for Wray's firm, King and Spalding, said the change was made to make his biography more current.


Spicer Refused To Allow Cameras Or Audio Recording At A Press Gaggle On Monday
The shift away from traditional press briefings culminated in a briefing yesterday in which no cameras or other recording devices were allowed.

Spicer conducted an off-camera briefing with reporters on Monday in which the press was told it could not film or broadcast audio of the proceedings. Spicer conducted the last on-camera briefing last Monday.

[The Hill]
 
Freeloading Rusty

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588
Trump travel ban injunction lifted in part by Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.

America's highest court also granted an emergency request from the White House allowing part of the refugee ban to go into effect.

The justices said they would consider in October whether Mr Trump's policy should be upheld or struck down.

Mr Trump seeks to place a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."

A Trump win - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Mark this down as a win for Donald Trump. The path to entry into the US for immigrants and refugees from the affected nations, if they don't have existing ties to the US - either through family, schools or employment - just became considerably harder.

The decision marks a reaffirmation of the sweeping powers the president has traditionally been granted by the courts in areas of national security. There was fear in some quarters that the administration's ham-fisted implementation of its immigration policy could do lasting damage to the president's prerogatives. That appears not to be the case.

The government, the justices write, has a "compelling need to provide for the nation's security". That includes being able to close the borders based on an evaluation of the potential of foreign threats - at least for now.

The Supreme Court justices will fully consider the arguments on both sides next autumn. Of course, by that time it may not matter. The administration has three months to conduct its "executive review" of immigration policy and devise new guidelines.

In the meantime, the gates to America just got a bit smaller.

The court said it could not uphold lower court injunctions barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all.

"Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.

The ruling clarified that those who would be deemed to have such a relationship would include a foreign national who wishes to enter the US to live with or visit a family member, a student at an American university, an employee of a US company, or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.

This would not apply, it said, to "someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid [the executive order].

"For example, a non-profit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

The court also said it would allow a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US to go into effect, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wrote in the dissenting ruling that they would have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, pending a review.

The ruling hands a major victory to Mr Trump, who restored a 5-4 conservative majority to the Supreme Court when his nominee, Justice Gorsuch, joined its bench in April.

There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

Mr Trump's policy had been left in limbo since it was struck down by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland, who found it to be discriminatory.

Those lower courts ruled against the executive order days after the president issued a revised version with a narrower scope on 6 March.

The original ban, released on 27 January, provoked mass protests at American airports.

Omar Jadwat, who argued in a lower court against the government on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, urged the Supreme Court "to permanently strike it down".

"Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban," he said.

The president's revised order calls for a 90-day ban on travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also introduces a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures.

Mr Trump issued the orders amid a slew of terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. However, critics called the policy un-American and Islamophobic.

The president was unhappy about the March order, calling it a "watered down, politically correct" version of the first one.

January's original executive order included Iraq among nations whose travellers would be barred from the US, and imposed a full ban on refugees from Syria.
Click to expand...
 
Truck Party

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,831
saw three CNN people had to resign over the latest discredited Trump/Russia BS report, not sure why it wasn't any less dishonest than their last one
 
Freeloading Rusty

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588
Truck Party said:
saw three CNN people had to resign over the latest discredited Trump/Russia BS report, not sure why it wasn't any less dishonest than their last one
Click to expand...
Lots of job openings at CNN lately.

Did anyone see they sent a sketch artist to the White House presser on Friday as cameras were banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom