President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

[Chloé Palmas]

To be honest it would not surprise me in the slightest if all of these messages were written by his staff.

It does lead to some confusion from time to time - my EA writes some of my replies through text or email, to nuisances that I have to deal with. Some of the women that I live near for example (whining brats). Then they will see me, and I don't know that my staff are dealing with them in real time ; so they are either thinking that I am Bi-polar / blow hot and cold or that I am just lying to them as my views contradict the more conciliatory nature of my staff who try keep the peace.

It is kind of standard procedure - especially when he is the President.

On this one, I would give him a free pass.

But these are official statements by, or on behalf of, the President of the USA.

http://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-...er-statements/

They all carry the authority of the Presidential office - is the world suppose to guess which ones are serious and which ones to ignore; seems a helluva way to run a country, on guesswork...

To be fair his first tweet is not pushing anybody to do anything, he said "They should", pushing someone to do something is saying "They must", he covers it at the end suggesting it's would be a waste putting it to a vote in the House and Senate with the obstructionist Democrats.

I can tell you, Democrats will lose big time in November Midterms, they're putting illegal immigrants first before their own citizens which is utterly sad, keep going on about separations which happened under President Obama as well and that tends to happen with criminals anyway, an American citizen that commits a crime, who is a parent does not take their child to jail.

Seeing lots of "#Walkaway" hashtags with stories of people abandoning the Democrats in droves.

Millennials are also turning the backs on the Democrats, a recent survey done back in April suggested, while 2 out of 3, said they were adamant about not liking President Trump, they had no issues looking to their local Republican Representatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I10YH

Although nearly two of three young voters polled said they do not like Republican President Donald Trump, their distaste for him does not necessarily extend to all Republicans or translate directly into votes for Democratic congressional candidates.

That presents a potential problem for Democrats who have come to count on millennials as a core constituency - and will need all the loyalty they can get to achieve a net gain of 23 seats to capture control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November.

Young voters represent an opportunity and a risk for both parties, said Donald Green, a political science professor at Columbia University in New York City.

“They’re not as wedded to one party,” Green said. “They’re easier to convince than, say, your 50- or 60-year-olds who don’t really change their minds very often.”

Terry Hood, 34, an African-American who works at a Dollar General store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and took this year’s poll, said he voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

But he will consider a Republican for Congress because he believes the party is making it easier to find jobs and he applauds the recent Republican-led tax cut.

“It sounds strange to me to say this about the Republicans, but they’re helping with even the small things,” Hood said in a phone interview. “They’re taking less taxes out of my paycheck. I notice that.”

The Democrats have finally set a date for Civil War: Part Two:

[Chloé Palmas]

Right, I mean they did so well in the first one, lol...

(Perhaps I need to put sarcasm tags around this post, lol).

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

I never gave my own opinion of the judgement since I am not an expert on American law. I was pointing out that the Washington Post did not mean 'narrow' in the sense of the vote but in the sense of the scope of the judgement which was the original objection you had. I then pointed out that they were not alone in that judgement.

Indeed and I did not mean to imply that it was your own opinion but the opinion that you did receive (from the paper based editorials) were totally wrong. Even though they were the majority of said opinions on the subject, most did not even bother to opine on the issue. Because most did not need to say anything about the scope, the rest of us already knew the breadth of the decision.

They were not alone in the opinion, you are correct. They were just totally wrong, which the court has now affirmed, very fast - without even ruling on anything but rather forcing WA to do so.

Again, not a lawyer but we don't yet the know the outcome of the lower court. The lower court now has to the decide if the cake case does indeed set a precedent that applies in their case. If they come back with the same ruling then we're back to square one and the Supreme Court might have to hear it again or let it stands.

They wouldn't nor should they re-rule the same way, the SC specifically said to reconsider in light of the CO ruling.

Now if the WA state SC were to refuse to do so, there are a number of remedies available. Again overturned on appeal but that is just the issue of this case.

WA state could impeach their SC justices who fail to follow existing case law though at the state level there are also procedural elements that could lead to ethicatory issues ; civil fines and judges disbarred for unruly behavior.

Depending on who authors the decision then personal and professional misconduct charges could also be levied against that court though it is difficult to do if the court itself rules rather than an individual. (I.e. not an individual but a panel / if it was an en banc hearing).

I am unsure on the grounds of impeachment simply because it is not a federal judge but WA state could impeach the justices, too. (Though that is usually reserved for issues of MT).

Charles Pickering was impeached due to insanity in 1804 and WHH in 1862 but that was on grounds of treason so when it comes down to legal decisions going awry all I can think of is Sam Chase in 1804:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history...l-samuel-chase

That again though, was the high court - I can't think of a case where lower courts just buck the SC - it would be judicial suicide. It just does not and cannot happen. Even Harry Pregerson, who said at his confirmation hearing (in front of Congressional committees) that he would follow his conscience if it conflicted with the law, simply avoided unfriendly precedents altogether. He never had the preposterous idea of re-ruling against a higher court's decision.

FYI some states allow for the public election of judges, even to the SSC. Like Florida for example. Now I can't remember which one WA is but it is not as purist a system because voters can recall judges, like in CA - the recent Stanford rape case comes to mind. (Kind of like "the people get a say") In this instance though, I am not sure if WA would even consider recall or just impeach straight away - whichever costs less and takes the lesser amount of time I suppose.

One instance where a judge did beat that kind of a rap was Anthony Kline where the CA commission recommended removal but he escaped punishment on a technicality. Usually most states have such complaints boards / commissions etc and they can or do recommend judicial / civil / legislative remedy etc (dependent on state / case / circumstance etc).

Any WA state SC justice who thinks it is a fun idea to buck the Supremes won't be in a job much longer - it won't happen. Even if they try to worm a way round it they will get smacked right back down.

If this ruling was to be overturned and effectively said that it's legal to deny any service to people based on their sexuality then the entire purpose of anti-discrimination law would be challenged. In that case then yes the cake case would have set a huge precedent but I doubt that would be the last we would hear of it.

Oh, sure - there will be whining every which way.

However sexual orientation has never been a PC under the CRA and never will be, religion is. The two cannot work in alignment, it will always have to be one or the other.

The store did not deny service btw, they just refused to participate in a specific ceremony.

The decision was not narrow, either in ruling or scope - the media messed up, big time. Both because they are clueless on legal proceeding and because their own bias / agenda clouded their (what should be) journalistic ability.

Btw none of that is aimed at you. What you said about not being an expert on American law is taken in good stride and I also accept that the people who wrote those inaccurate articles are not, either. The difference between you and them though, is that they thought that it was a good idea to run their mouths / opine on something that they knew jack shit about in the first place. You didn't - you asked, you listened and I commend you for it my dear.

BREAKING: District Court Judge Sullivan, is not satisfied with Special Counsel's Robert Mueller III's explanation for kicking the sentencing of General Flynn, down the road for the third time. Wants to see Flynn in court on July 10th for a Status hearing.

Judge Sullivan has requested an explanation from Mueller's team as to why he should diverge from his typical sentencing routine. Specifically, he asked why “the Court should expand the Probation Office’s resources and depart from the Court’s usual practice of ordering a pre-sentence report, scheduling a sentencing date, and establishing a sentencing briefing schedule at the same time. Source: AP.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think you have got slightly carried away here?

I don't think so. The ability of someone to withdraw their labour or deny their business services to someone because their religion has a problem with the situation will always be contextual. You can not have an absolute here.

I'll have to re-read through the details but as I understand it there was not a specific refusal to allow entry into the store / service altogether. It was just for that very specific issue.

I am yet to reply to Damien's post but if I understand it correctly, the couple were welcome to receive any other goods or service that did not infringe upon the religious rights of the owner. (I'll re-read it and also reply to Damien's post) but they were not denied service / entry from what I know of the case.

BTW, what on earth do you mean by "gay whoring"?

Yeah, that is what I meant by:

Secondly, some of the tone / language of this message may seem tough / crude. In no way is that aimed at you.

And that line was the comment I was referring to - I have no other way that I can think of wording that...in fact to anyone if they can advise, I am all ears.

Basically if someone promotes a cause to such an extent that they are a political one trick pony they pretty much prostitute themselves for the cause...how would you word it? Like Farage was opposed to the EU all his life and still is, Ken Clarke is pro EU but I would never say that calling Clarke "a Eurowhore" is an acceptable turn of phrase, would I? In that instance euro based terms (skeptic and phillic) have been used as a phrase of term, correct?

I don't know how to describe someone that is so obsessed on the one issue that the central plank of their life becomes it but reasonable people can differ on the issue. If you are in favor, you could say that you are fighting for equality. Opposed you could say that you are fighting for religious liberty but when it gets to the obsession that say NARAL / PP have with abortion yet you encompass a broader (entire) political spectrum to it, what do you call it?

Again the language was confusing at best and had elements of vulgarity but I am at a loss to the words to use here, the outward behavior to try _____ for homosexuality - you fill in the blanks and we'll see where this leads?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I'll have to re-read through the details but as I understand it there was not a specific refusal to allow entry into the store / service altogether. It was just for that very specific issue.

I am yet to reply to Damien's post but if I understand it correctly, the couple were welcome to receive any other goods or service that did not infringe upon the religious rights of the owner. (I'll re-read it and also reply to Damien's post) but they were not denied service / entry from what I know of the case.

When you said "religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else" I assumed you meant in a broader sense. If you just meant it in relation to people's religious objections to do business with LGBT people, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Yeah, that is what I meant by:



And that line was the comment I was referring to - I have no other way that I can think of wording that...in fact to anyone if they can advise, I am all ears.

Basically if someone promotes a cause to such an extent that they are a political one trick pony they pretty much prostitute themselves for the cause...how would you word it? Like Farage was opposed to the EU all his life and still is, Ken Clarke is pro EU but I would never say that calling Clarke "a Eurowhore" is an acceptable turn of phrase, would I? In that instance euro based terms (skeptic and phillic) have been used as a phrase of term, correct?

I don't know how to describe someone that is so obsessed on the one issue that the central plank of their life becomes it but reasonable people can differ on the issue. If you are in favor, you could say that you are fighting for equality. Opposed you could say that you are fighting for religious liberty but when it gets to the obsession that say NARAL / PP have with abortion yet you encompass a broader (entire) political spectrum to it, what do you call it?

Again the language was confusing at best and had elements of vulgarity but I am at a loss to the words to use here, the outward behavior to try _____ for homosexuality - you fill in the blanks and we'll see where this leads?

Just because someone is passionate about their rights doesn't make them a "whore". Expand to "gay whore" and do a web search for this and you enter a whole new realm

Your use of a derogatory term just deflects from your argument, bit of an own goal really ..

BREAKING: Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who sent text messages to his mistress lover, who also worked for the FBI, that ‘We’ll stop him”, meaning Donald Trump from getting Elected - has been subpoenaed to testify publicly before a joint House Judiciary & GOPoversight hearing on Tuesday, July 10, at 10AM.

Also Just in: Associate Deputy Attorney General, Scott Schools who over sees Mueller probe with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, has Resigned.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

BREAKING: Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who sent text messages to his mistress lover, who also worked for the FBI, that ‘We’ll stop him”, meaning Donald Trump from getting Elected - has been subpoenaed to testify publicly before a joint House Judiciary & GOPoversight hearing on Tuesday, July 10, at 10AM.

Also Just in: Associate Deputy Attorney General, Scott Schools who over sees Mueller probe with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, has Resigned.

You really should open your own News Channel Mick - call it 'Taking the Mick news +1' or something....

Originally Posted by Mr K

You really should open your own News Channel Mick - call it 'Taking the Mick news +1' or something....

No I don't do parody, what I update the thread with, is factual, there is already a channel of such kind that takes the piss, it's called CNN.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

No I don't do parody, what I update the thread with, is factual, there is already a channel of such kind that takes the piss, it's called CNN.

Also Fox News.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...ssian-election

The Senate Intelligence Committee has unequivocally upheld the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia developed a "clear preference" for then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election and sought to help him win the White House.

The assessment, announced in an unclassified summary released Tuesday, represents a direct repudiation of the committee’s counterpart in the House — and of President Trump himself, who has consistently rejected assertions that Moscow sought to bolster his candidacy through its election interference.

Are they sure, they keep saying / arriving at the same thing?....

I’d like to know how when the actual DNC server has never been examined by FBI, still no evidence of any kind of any collusion, except by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton paying for Russian Dossier. A Second Special prosecutor is needed.