"...Trump’s objection to Fox News polling is possibly largely due to the fact that they’re good polls. Fox’s on-air programming is often heavily weighted in Trump’s favor, but their polling isn’t.”
"90% of Democrats thought a plan that provided for a public option was a good idea, as compared to 64% who supported a Sanders-style Medicare for All plan that would replace private health insurance. The popularity of the public option also carries over to independent voters: 70% support it, as compared to 39% for Medicare for All.”
“House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that he is going to court Friday and again next week in bids to enforce subpoenas seeking grand jury information associated with the special counsel investigation and testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn,” the Washington Post reports.
“Nadler said favorable court orders on those matters would ‘open the floodgates’ for enforcement of other subpoenas that he considers key to ongoing investigations of President Trump that have been stymied by White House’s refusal to cooperate.”
In a nearly seven-minute harangue, Joe Scarborough dismissed the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as “Moscow Mitch” for what he deemed as “un-American” lack of action on election security, Mediaite reports.
The Morning Joe host then suggested that McConnell may be benefiting from a Russian oligarch’s investment in his home state: “I understand that there’s an oligarch that I have read is going to be setting up a big aluminum plant in Moscow Mitch’s home state.”
He added: “I don’t know if that’s it. But how can Moscow Mitch so willingly turn a blind eye not only this year to what his Republican chairman of the Intel committee is saying, to what Robert Mueller is saying what the FBI director is saying what the DNI is saying, to what the CIA is saying, to what the United States military Intel community is saying. How can Moscow Mitch keep denying that Vladimir Putin continues to try to subvert American democracy?”
“The House Judiciary Committee on Friday said it would ask a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert Mueller’s investigation and use the court filing to make the most explicit declaration yet that lawmakers are weighing whether to impeach President Trump,” the New York Times reports.
“In a significant escalation, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Democratic chairman of the committee, said at a news conference that the application to the court would declare that the panel needs access to Mr. Mueller’s grand-jury evidence — such as witness testimony — to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president.”
Key point: “There is no formal rule that says the full House must formally authorize an impeachment inquiry for the committee to conduct one.”
Trump says Guatemala signing deal to restrict asylum cases
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump announced Friday that Guatemala is signing an agreement to restrict asylum applications to the U.S. from Central America.
The so-called “safe third country” agreement would require migrants, including Salvadorans and Hondurans, who cross into Guatemala on their way to the U.S. to apply for protections in Guatemala instead of at the U.S. border. It could potentially ease the crush of migrants overwhelming the U.S. immigration system and hand Trump a concession he could herald as a win as he struggles to live up to his campaign promises on immigration.
“This is a very big day,” Trump said, claiming that what he called a “landmark agreement will put coyotes and human traffickers out of work.”
President Donald Trump renewed his attacks on Fox News on Friday, complaining that the network’s pollsters aren’t favorable enough to him after claiming the news organization had been “Proud Warriors” for him in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
“@FoxNews is at it again. So different from what they used to be during the 2016 Primaries, & before - Proud Warriors! Now new Fox Polls, which have always been terrible to me (they had me losing BIG to Crooked Hillary), have me down to Sleepy Joe,” he tweeted, using the nickname he has assigned to former Vice President Joe Biden.
A difficult week for Donald Trump has gotten tougher with the release of several new polls in swing states showing him trailing Hillary Clinton by wide margins. The surveys come hot on the heels of polls from CNN/ORC and Fox News showing that Clinton's got a wide national lead (plus-9 in CNN's, and plus-10 in Fox's). And the bad numbers have been coupled with day after day of negative press for Trump, including his poorly received fight with the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, his declaration at a rally that he "always wanted a Purple Heart" and reports that his campaign staff is becoming demoralized.
House democrats have become so damn obnoxious. It stopped being funny long ago. This is a partisan coup attempt and much of America has had enough of it.
McGahn represented people within the Administration, Roger. He didn't represent a "thing".
It's like arguing that a "corporate attorney" has no grounds for "privilege" because he/she is nobody's "personal lawyer".
Any lawyer who provides legal advice under retainer is bound by the attorney client privilege. The "title" that they work under is irrelevant to that legal standard. The only time that privilege would not apply is if the attorney in question had information of an ongoing or future crime.
I know that McGahn (who was the White House counsel) believes that testifying about his legal discussions with the President would be breaking his privilege. If he didn't feel that way, then he would just go ahead and testify.
But I suppose he knows shit too, huh?
The problem, Roger, is that you don't even have the legal argument correct. Nobody (who is serious) is arguing that there is no privilege between White House Counsel and those he represents (and counsels). The only real reasonable argument is that Trump "waived" all privilege because he allowed McGahn to speak to Special Counsel.
I say reasonable, even though I believe it still lacks merit. But it's not an idiotic argument that his Title as "White House Counsel" means he was representing... um what, exactly? A building?
A client should be allowed to waive his right to privilege in certain circumstances if he or she chooses, without waiving it all together. That is the argument that Trump will use. At this point, I have never heard of anyone who was not able to claim Attorney Client Privilege in one situation, because he/she allowed their attorney to talk to "someone" about the case in another situation.
It's a desperate grab... and if you gave even the slightest rip about the "actual" rule of law (rather than the political bend rule of law), then you would see this for what it really is.
McGahn testifying or not isn't the point. I really don't give a rip. The Mueller report has his testimony. People can read the report. They can read people giving opinions about the report. They can listen to people give opinions about the report. Democrats read the report out loud (and nobody listed). The just put forward the worn down decrepit Robert Mueller to talk about it...
and guess what, nobody cares. They had five investigations and three years to prove something, and they got jack shit (because there was no conspiracy there). Now they expect the public to care about their cries that the bad orange man obstructed Justice after Mueller testified under oath that his investigation was not hampered or obstructed in any way?
You think people are going to care to listen to someone that 90% of the county has never heard of, over some mundane issues of "volume II" which was always the bad opening band that people put up with, because they wanted to see the main band. Especially when the Justice Department has already concluded that the so-called instances were nonsense?
If I were Trump I would let him do it, just to let them look even more desperate than they are. I wouldn't fight it in court (even though he would win). Just tell him to go testify.
"Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and her husband Ahmed Hirsi – the father of her three children – have split, DailyMail.com has learned exclusivelyOmar left her husband and has moved into a penthouse apartment in one of Minneapolis's trendiest neighborhoods 'Wow,' said Hirsi, when approached about the split by DailyMail.com. 'I can't comment on that. I'm sorry, I just can't say anything'Omar did not return calls requesting comment from DailyMail.com by deadline The news comes as critics are demanding Omar answer questions about whether she married her own brother in a successful bid to get him into the US ."
Although the White House Counsel offers legal advice to the President, the Counsel does so in the President’s official capacity, and does not serve as the President’s personal attorney. Therefore, controversy has emerged over the scope of the attorney–client privilege between the Counsel and the President, namely with John Dean of Watergate notoriety. It is clear, however, that the privilege does not apply in strictly personal matters. It also does not apply to legislative proceedings by the U.S. Congress against the President due to allegations of misconduct while in office, such as formal censures or impeachment proceedings. In those situations the President relies on a personal attorney if he desires confidential legal advice.
Is this true? Was it true in the past.
Not only that is the attorney client privilege is to give the client the 5th Amendment rights in a criminal case. The courts have given the house of Representatives their rights to investigate the President for impeachable offenses. Impeachment is not a criminal court case.
What should be bothering you is that the President and Mitch Biden are not allowing the law designed to protect our election system from the Russians, Chinese and North Korea.
What should be bothering you is that the President and Mitch Biden are not allowing the law designed to protect our election system from the Russians, Chinese and North Korea.
alky,
what does bother me is that 0linsky allowed it to happen in the first place. and that he openly mocked romney for suggesting that russia was our most serious geo-political foe. you assholes had quite the laugh ar romney's expense. right up until it came back to bite you in the ass like it always does. all you guys ever care about is winning. you never have a plan to actually govern and legislate once you do.
the point that you intentionally miss is that all of this supposed russian meddling happened on 0linsky's watch. if it happened at all.
Although the White House Counsel offers legal advice to the President, the Counsel does so in the President’s official capacity, and does not serve as the President’s personal attorney.
give wikipedia the credit they are due, alky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel
fat nadler and the democrats have no legal right to mcgahn's testimony. any competent judge (not appointed by 0linsky) will acknowledge this. mcgahn's testimony is the equivalent of grand jury testimony which congress is not entitled to anyway.
if they want access to it they had better get busy writing and passing legislation giving them access.
personally i hope fat nadler, lil schitt, and the rest of your cavalcade of stars spends every waking moment pursuing this bullshit. i don't think trump will need the help to get re-elected, but it sure can't hurt.
The courts have given the house of Representatives their rights to investigate the President for impeachable offenses. Impeachment is not a criminal court case.
correct.
but that STILL doesn't entitle congress to mcgahn's testimony.
you assholes keep telling us that "no one is above the law" yet you continue to attempt to skirt or ignore the law to achieve your desired outcome.
Question for you. Did you know that the secrecy of Grand Jury testimony is actually governed by an actual "Law"? A law that was recently confirmed in court on a completely unrelated case?
So why is it that you believe that Democrats should be above the "law" rather than required to follow it like everyone else?
Democrats would sound much better about demanding nobody is above the law if they were not blatantly trying to get around it over and over and over in an attempt to get to this President.
All because they are hell bent on "getting" the President at any cost, even if it means bending or breaking laws along the way? Meanwhile, we are about to find out whether or not those who started the investigation also broke laws (such as FISA laws, and other privacy laws).
Of course, you don't believe that we should see if our law enforcement acted "above the law" because the only person you are concerned with is Trump.
At the end of the day you don't care about the "rule of law" when it comes to Democrats and "getting" the President. If a "law" gets in the way of more witch hunt investigations, isn't it an attempt to be "above the law" to try to figure out a way to get around it?
44 comments:
Unlike the Russian collusion hoax circus, this one will be quiet and under the radar.
The press will be in all out suppression mode.
CNN containing Anti-Semitism is being put in the spot light.
Socialist Democrats Debates are being hosted by CNN .
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/26/2020-vision-trump-blasts-fox-news-over-poll-showing-him-losing-to-biden/23779413/
Impeachment is still on the table and we are still gathering more evidence.
Ah yes, the plot (read crimes) WILL indeed thicken, and thicken, and thicken...
"...Trump’s objection to Fox News polling is possibly largely due to the fact that they’re good polls. Fox’s on-air programming is often heavily weighted in Trump’s favor, but their polling isn’t.”
We are seeing a political party commit political suicide.
only pederasts use AOL
"90% of Democrats thought a plan that provided for a public option was a good idea, as compared to 64% who supported a Sanders-style Medicare for All plan that would replace private health insurance. The popularity of the public option also carries over to independent voters: 70% support it, as compared to 39% for Medicare for All.”
Funny thing. The "public option" and Medicare for All are one in the same idea. It's just that the "public option" is the most dishonest spin.
Nadler Heads to Court to Enforce Subpoenas
“House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that he is going to court Friday and again next week in bids to enforce subpoenas seeking grand jury information associated with the special counsel investigation and testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn,” the Washington Post reports.
“Nadler said favorable court orders on those matters would ‘open the floodgates’ for enforcement of other subpoenas that he considers key to ongoing investigations of President Trump that have been stymied by White House’s refusal to cooperate.”
‘Moscow Mitch’
In a nearly seven-minute harangue, Joe Scarborough dismissed the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as “Moscow Mitch” for what he deemed as “un-American” lack of action on election security, Mediaite reports.
The Morning Joe host then suggested that McConnell may be benefiting from a Russian oligarch’s investment in his home state: “I understand that there’s an oligarch that I have read is going to be setting up a big aluminum plant in Moscow Mitch’s home state.”
He added: “I don’t know if that’s it. But how can Moscow Mitch so willingly turn a blind eye not only this year to what his Republican chairman of the Intel committee is saying, to what Robert Mueller is saying what the FBI director is saying what the DNI is saying, to what the CIA is saying, to what the United States military Intel community is saying. How can Moscow Mitch keep denying that Vladimir Putin continues to try to subvert American democracy?”
Mad Magazine Goes For Madly Hilarious In New Book Bashing Trump Era
Yeah...
Nadler wants the court to force McGahn to break his attorney/client privilege, effectively getting him disbarred and ending his legal career.
For what exactly? Another dead end because they cannot let go?
The Democrats have officially become Wile E Coyote and Trump is the road runner. Beep Beep!!!
"
caliphate4vrJuly 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM
only pederasts use AOL"
Pedo is so predictable.
The Socialist Democrats have thief policies, free, free, free shit.
"Just pay for it" The Sqautter
ME WORRY ? TRUMP WIS AGAIN !!!
Mad Magazine to Effectively Shutter After 67 Years
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mad-magazine-effectively-close-67-years-1222636
All this winning is getting a bit tiring... Again Trump was right AGAIN.
ROFLMFAO !!!
* TRUMP WINS AGAIN
Nancy and little dense Chuck have Both been in office for 30 + years.
Yet, the blame Trump for the problems .
Democrats Seek Mueller’s Grand Jury Material
“The House Judiciary Committee on Friday said it would ask a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert Mueller’s investigation and use the court filing to make the most explicit declaration yet that lawmakers are weighing whether to impeach President Trump,” the New York Times reports.
“In a significant escalation, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Democratic chairman of the committee, said at a news conference that the application to the court would declare that the panel needs access to Mr. Mueller’s grand-jury evidence — such as witness testimony — to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president.”
Key point: “There is no formal rule that says the full House must formally authorize an impeachment inquiry for the committee to conduct one.”
MORE TRUMP WINNING !!!
Trump says Guatemala signing deal to restrict asylum cases
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump announced Friday that Guatemala is signing an agreement to restrict asylum applications to the U.S. from Central America.
The so-called “safe third country” agreement would require migrants, including Salvadorans and Hondurans, who cross into Guatemala on their way to the U.S. to apply for protections in Guatemala instead of at the U.S. border. It could potentially ease the crush of migrants overwhelming the U.S. immigration system and hand Trump a concession he could herald as a win as he struggles to live up to his campaign promises on immigration.
“This is a very big day,” Trump said, claiming that what he called a “landmark agreement will put coyotes and human traffickers out of work.”
https://apnews.com/23f6b9a087e841188c5484cd5cf04f3d?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_
@Doc_0
Evolution of Democrat talking points:
1. Mueller is the greatest lawman in American history
2. Mueller is a veteran and Repubs should be ashamed for badgering him with tough questions
3. Mueller is a hapless old fool and his report is useless so we need another investigation
Fox News survey released Thursday, Biden leads the president by 10 points (49 percent to 39 percent.
Slow Joe 46.
McGahn was the Administration lawyer. Not the President's personal lawyer. attorney/client privilege does not apply.
President Donald Trump renewed his attacks on Fox News on Friday, complaining that the network’s pollsters aren’t favorable enough to him after claiming the news organization had been “Proud Warriors” for him in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
“@FoxNews is at it again. So different from what they used to be during the 2016 Primaries, & before - Proud Warriors! Now new Fox Polls, which have always been terrible to me (they had me losing BIG to Crooked Hillary), have me down to Sleepy Joe,” he tweeted, using the nickname he has assigned to former Vice President Joe Biden.
The national survey said Trump would lose to Biden by 10 percentage points.
A difficult week for Donald Trump has gotten tougher with the release of several new polls in swing states showing him trailing Hillary Clinton by wide margins. The surveys come hot on the heels of polls from CNN/ORC and Fox News showing that Clinton's got a wide national lead (plus-9 in CNN's, and plus-10 in Fox's). And the bad numbers have been coupled with day after day of negative press for Trump, including his poorly received fight with the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, his declaration at a rally that he "always wanted a Purple Heart" and reports that his campaign staff is becoming demoralized.
Landslide
Biden. Trump
FOX New 7/21 - 7/23 49 39 Biden +10
Nadler trying to change the headlines.
House democrats have become so damn obnoxious. It stopped being funny long ago. This is a partisan coup attempt and much of America has had enough of it.
Trump wins again in scotus. Another lower court activist decision overturned.
McGahn was the Administration lawyer.
McGahn represented people within the Administration, Roger. He didn't represent a "thing".
It's like arguing that a "corporate attorney" has no grounds for "privilege" because he/she is nobody's "personal lawyer".
Any lawyer who provides legal advice under retainer is bound by the attorney client privilege. The "title" that they work under is irrelevant to that legal standard. The only time that privilege would not apply is if the attorney in question had information of an ongoing or future crime.
You don't know shit.
You don't know shit.
I know that McGahn (who was the White House counsel) believes that testifying about his legal discussions with the President would be breaking his privilege. If he didn't feel that way, then he would just go ahead and testify.
But I suppose he knows shit too, huh?
The problem, Roger, is that you don't even have the legal argument correct. Nobody (who is serious) is arguing that there is no privilege between White House Counsel and those he represents (and counsels). The only real reasonable argument is that Trump "waived" all privilege because he allowed McGahn to speak to Special Counsel.
I say reasonable, even though I believe it still lacks merit. But it's not an idiotic argument that his Title as "White House Counsel" means he was representing... um what, exactly? A building?
A client should be allowed to waive his right to privilege in certain circumstances if he or she chooses, without waiving it all together. That is the argument that Trump will use. At this point, I have never heard of anyone who was not able to claim Attorney Client Privilege in one situation, because he/she allowed their attorney to talk to "someone" about the case in another situation.
It's a desperate grab... and if you gave even the slightest rip about the "actual" rule of law (rather than the political bend rule of law), then you would see this for what it really is.
Honestly Roger...
McGahn testifying or not isn't the point. I really don't give a rip. The Mueller report has his testimony. People can read the report. They can read people giving opinions about the report. They can listen to people give opinions about the report. Democrats read the report out loud (and nobody listed). The just put forward the worn down decrepit Robert Mueller to talk about it...
and guess what, nobody cares. They had five investigations and three years to prove something, and they got jack shit (because there was no conspiracy there). Now they expect the public to care about their cries that the bad orange man obstructed Justice after Mueller testified under oath that his investigation was not hampered or obstructed in any way?
You think people are going to care to listen to someone that 90% of the county has never heard of, over some mundane issues of "volume II" which was always the bad opening band that people put up with, because they wanted to see the main band. Especially when the Justice Department has already concluded that the so-called instances were nonsense?
If I were Trump I would let him do it, just to let them look even more desperate than they are. I wouldn't fight it in court (even though he would win). Just tell him to go testify.
Who the fuck "really" cares?
Tim Young
@TimRunsHisMouth
It's going to be weird when Democrats are still talking about impeachment on Election Day in 2020... right?
Hey maybe Mueller was just positioning for Biden's VP slot ? slow and slower.
Alky throw all the female Canidates under the Bus.
Biden is his man.
No changing Alky.
I love this story.
"Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and her husband Ahmed Hirsi – the father of her three children – have split, DailyMail.com has learned exclusivelyOmar left her husband and has moved into a penthouse apartment in one of Minneapolis's trendiest neighborhoods 'Wow,' said Hirsi, when approached about the split by DailyMail.com. 'I can't comment on that. I'm sorry, I just can't say anything'Omar did not return calls requesting comment from DailyMail.com by deadline The news comes as critics are demanding Omar answer questions about whether she married her own brother in a successful bid to get him into the US ."
Alky tell us how you fell about this.
Although the White House Counsel offers legal advice to the President, the Counsel does so in the President’s official capacity, and does not serve as the President’s personal attorney. Therefore, controversy has emerged over the scope of the attorney–client privilege between the Counsel and the President, namely with John Dean of Watergate notoriety. It is clear, however, that the privilege does not apply in strictly personal matters. It also does not apply to legislative proceedings by the U.S. Congress against the President due to allegations of misconduct while in office, such as formal censures or impeachment proceedings. In those situations the President relies on a personal attorney if he desires confidential legal advice.
Is this true? Was it true in the past.
Not only that is the attorney client privilege is to give the client the 5th Amendment rights in a criminal case. The courts have given the house of Representatives their rights to investigate the President for impeachable offenses. Impeachment is not a criminal court case.
What should be bothering you is that the President and Mitch Biden are not allowing the law designed to protect our election system from the Russians, Chinese and North Korea.
He welcomes their assistance to win again.
The law was design to promote voter fraud.
It was rightly shelved.
2016 Election. IF we believe today's Socialist Democrats was compromised and Obama/Biden where in charge.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
What should be bothering you is that the President and Mitch Biden are not allowing the law designed to protect our election system from the Russians, Chinese and North Korea.
alky,
what does bother me is that 0linsky allowed it to happen in the first place. and that he openly mocked romney for suggesting that russia was our most serious geo-political foe. you assholes had quite the laugh ar romney's expense. right up until it came back to bite you in the ass like it always does. all you guys ever care about is winning. you never have a plan to actually govern and legislate once you do.
the point that you intentionally miss is that all of this supposed russian meddling happened on 0linsky's watch. if it happened at all.
Although the White House Counsel offers legal advice to the President, the Counsel does so in the President’s official capacity, and does not serve as the President’s personal attorney.
give wikipedia the credit they are due, alky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel
fat nadler and the democrats have no legal right to mcgahn's testimony. any competent judge (not appointed by 0linsky) will acknowledge this. mcgahn's testimony is the equivalent of grand jury testimony which congress is not entitled to anyway.
if they want access to it they had better get busy writing and passing legislation giving them access.
personally i hope fat nadler, lil schitt, and the rest of your cavalcade of stars spends every waking moment pursuing this bullshit. i don't think trump will need the help to get re-elected, but it sure can't hurt.
The courts have given the house of Representatives their rights to investigate the President for impeachable offenses. Impeachment is not a criminal court case.
correct.
but that STILL doesn't entitle congress to mcgahn's testimony.
you assholes keep telling us that "no one is above the law" yet you continue to attempt to skirt or ignore the law to achieve your desired outcome.
Roger
Question for you. Did you know that the secrecy of Grand Jury testimony is actually governed by an actual "Law"? A law that was recently confirmed in court on a completely unrelated case?
So why is it that you believe that Democrats should be above the "law" rather than required to follow it like everyone else?
Democrats would sound much better about demanding nobody is above the law if they were not blatantly trying to get around it over and over and over in an attempt to get to this President.
They want to ignore:
Laws regarding grand jury testimony
Attorney Client Privilege
IRS Privacy laws regarding tax returns
All because they are hell bent on "getting" the President at any cost, even if it means bending or breaking laws along the way? Meanwhile, we are about to find out whether or not those who started the investigation also broke laws (such as FISA laws, and other privacy laws).
Of course, you don't believe that we should see if our law enforcement acted "above the law" because the only person you are concerned with is Trump.
At the end of the day you don't care about the "rule of law" when it comes to Democrats and "getting" the President. If a "law" gets in the way of more witch hunt investigations, isn't it an attempt to be "above the law" to try to figure out a way to get around it?
Hypocrisy!
Roger
Question for you. Did you know that the secrecy of Grand Jury testimony is actually governed by an actual "Law"?"
He had to leave, you put him in the corner again.
Post a Comment