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

MC Gusto said:

Shit.

Caps locked.

You must be serious.

Click to expand...

Conor McGregor Nut Hugger said:

Is that too much to ask?

Click to expand...

Zeph said:

Click to expand...

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suggested that attorneys preparing to question President Bill Clinton in 1998 seek graphic details about the president's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The questions are part of a memo in which Kavanaugh advised Independent Counsel Ken Starr and others not to give the president "any break" during questioning. He suggested Clinton be asked whether he had phone sex with Lewinsky and whether he performed specific sexual acts.

Kavanaugh worked on Starr's team investigating Clinton. He said it may not be "our job to impose sanctions on him, but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece."

The memo was released on Monday by the National Archives and Records Administration. In the subject line, Kavanaugh asks, "Slack for the President?"

Kavanaugh goes on to answer the question with a resounding no.

He said he had tried to bend over backward to be fair to Clinton and to think of reasonable defenses for his behavior, but in the end, became convinced there were none. "The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me," Kavanaugh wrote.

He also accused Clinton of committing perjury, turning the Secret Service upside down, and trying to disgrace Starr and the independent counsel's office with "a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush."

Kavanaugh in the memo states, "The president has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people by having sex with a 22-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles."

The release from the Archives comes before confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh, scheduled for the week after Labor Day. Kavanaugh has been making courtesy calls to senators and met Monday for about an hour with the senior Democratic member of the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hopes to have Kavanaugh confirmed to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy before the new court session begins Oct. 1.

After leaving Starr's investigative team, Kavanaugh went on to serve in the administration of President George W. Bush and as a circuit court judge. He's reflected on various occasions about investigations involving a sitting president.

He wrote in a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article that it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute that would allow civil lawsuits against a sitting president to be deferred until the president's term ends. He said Congress should consider doing the same with "respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President."

Democrats have asserted that Trump chose Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court because he would protect him from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

Kavanaugh's August 1998 memo to Starr and his legal team said that he was mindful of the need to respect the office of the president. But he said the full facts should be gathered "so that the Congress can decide whether the interests of the Presidency would be best served by having a new President."

Otherwise, he asked, "Aren't we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if we willingly 'conspire' with the President in an effort to conceal the true nature of his acts?"

He went on to suggest 10 questions for Clinton that go into vivid detail about sexual acts, how often they occurred and whether Lewinksy would be lying if she had recounted those actions.

Clinton was impeached in a post-election session of the House, acquitted in the Senate and remained in office.

Click to expand...

MC Gusto said:

Kavanaugh in memo pushed graphic sex questions for Clinton

Click to expand...

Galt said:

555 defending your favorite rapist?

Click to expand...

Papi Chingon said:

It can't go both ways. Don't push it! Disregard acral details (or lack there of) details, and payouts (Paul Jones got $850k).

Click to expand...

Galt said:

555 defending your favorite rapist?

Click to expand...

willthiswork said:

View: https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1045791118091333634?s=19

Click to expand...

MC Gusto said:

If I had to pick a favorite rapist, it definitely wouldn't be Clinton.

I think I would go with Tupac Amaru Shakur.

Click to expand...

willthiswork said:

View: https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1045791118091333634?s=19

Click to expand...

Hauler said:

Is this still the emoluments thing?

Click to expand...

Almost 200 Congressional Democrats got a go-ahead from a judge to pursue a lawsuit claiming that Donald Trump is violating a Constitutional ban on receiving benefits from foreign governments without their permission while he’s president.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington on Friday denied a Justice Department request to dismiss the lawsuit, filed last year by Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and other members of the House and Senate. The judge ruled they have legal standing to pursue their claim, while deferring his decision on the merits of the dispute.

Almost 200 Congressional Democrats got a go-ahead from a judge to pursue a lawsuit claiming that Donald Trump is violating a Constitutional ban on receiving benefits from foreign governments without their permission while he’s president.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington on Friday denied a Justice Department request to dismiss the lawsuit, filed last year by Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and other members of the House and Senate. The judge ruled they have legal standing to pursue their claim, while deferring his decision on the merits of the dispute.


It’s another loss for the president who is fighting claims in three courts that he’s illegally profiting from his position. He twice failed to have a Maryland federal court lawsuit thrown out, where the state’s attorney general and his District of Columbia counterpart claim Trump is illegally taking payments from foreign and state governments at his Washington hotel.

The congressional Democrats are seeking an order compelling Trump to notify Congress when he’s offered an emolument, giving them the option to vote on whether he can accept it. Blumenthal has called the emoluments clauses the Constitution’s "premier anti-corruption provision."

Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said, “We believe this case should be dismissed, and we will continue to defend the president in court." The White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Blumenthal called the judge’s ruling a “a triumph for the rule of law” during a conference call with reporters and said it would prove that no president is above the law. New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who joined in the suit, also praised the court’s decision.

The judge’s ruling was welcomed by Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar who has been fighting the president in court and on Twitter.

Trump said he stepped down from running his $3 billion empire but retained his ownership interests, a decision the Democrats say violates the Foreign Emoluments clause because he’s getting payments from foreign governments without congressional approval.

While the Democrats claimed they’re being denied the right to vote on the benefits, attorneys for the president say the matter should be resolved in Congress, not in court. Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate told Sullivan on June 7 that the legislators are always free to vote on whether the president can accept such benefits, meaning they didn’t suffer a legally recognizable injury giving them standing to sue.

The judge disagreed in his 58-page ruling. "Legislation on the emoluments issue does not provide an adequate remedy," and would compel the court to ignore the clause which, Sullivan said, "places the burden on the president to convince a majority of members of Congress to consent."

Legislation, as suggested by Trump’s lawyers, "flips this burden, placing the burden on Members of Congress to convince a majority of their colleagues to enact the suggested legislation. This is not what the clause requires."

The cases are Blumenthal v. Trump, 17-cv-1154, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington) and The District of Columbia v. Trump, 17-cv-1596, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt).

Click to expand...

MC Gusto said:

Yup.

Congressional Democrats Can Sue Trump Over Emoluments, Judge Says

Click to expand...

Hauler said:

Grasping at straws.
Petty whining.
They'd be better suited getting their own house in order for 2020.

Instead of bitching and whining about this administration, they should look in the mirror and ask "How the fuck did we lose to this guy?"

And if that answer is still "Russia", they still don't get it.

Click to expand...

MC Gusto said:

So you're ok with your president profiting from his position and/or receiving benefits from foreign govts that dont require reporting?

You dont think that is a conflict of interests?

Click to expand...