President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nice job, Kellyanne!

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-...3c354c456e1db2

“Conway’s encouragement to buy Ivanka’s stuff would seem to be a clear violation of rules prohibiting misuse of public office for anyone’s private gain,” said Don W. Fox, former general counsel and former acting director of OGE. “This is jaw-dropping to me. This rule has been promulgated by the federal Office of Government Ethics as part of the Standards of Conduct for all executive branch employees and it applies to all members of the armed forces as well.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

Violating federal law. I wonder if Trump is going to start calling her "Crooked Kellyanne".

[PaloAltoCougar]

Violating federal law. I wonder if Trump is going to start calling her "Crooked Kellyanne".

I assume the White House Counsel's office is working 'round the clock trying to educate Kellyanne and everyone else who apparently have no idea about conflicts issues and the law.

And in other news, I've enjoyed the jump in the stock market, fueled at least in part by high expectations of what Trump will do for business, but this article in The Failing New York Times about genius investor Seth Klarman is a bit unsettling.

In particular, Mr. Klarman appears to believe that investors have become hypnotized by all the talk of pro-growth policies, without considering the full ramifications. He worries, for example, that Mr. Trump’s stimulus efforts “could prove quite inflationary, which would likely shock investors.”

And he appears deeply concerned about a swelling national debt that he suggests could undermine the economy’s growth over the long term.

“The Trump tax cuts could drive government deficits considerably higher,” Mr. Klarman wrote. “The large 2001 Bush tax cuts, for example, fueled income inequality while triggering huge federal budget deficits. Rising interest rates alone would balloon the federal deficit, because interest payments on the massive outstanding government debt would skyrocket from today’s artificially low levels.”

Much of Mr. Klarman’s anxiety seems to emanate from Mr. Trump’s leadership style. He described it this way: “The erratic tendencies and overconfidence in his own wisdom and judgment that Donald Trump has demonstrated to date are inconsistent with strong leadership and sound decision-making.”

[Maximus]

I usually find Rosie O'Donnell to be extremely annoying, but I want to believe the rumor that she'll appear on SNL as Steve Bannon. I thought Melissa McCarthy's send-up of Spicer was very good, and it had the added benefit of apparently really bothering Trump. Imagine the effect of an O'Donnell riff on Bannon.

her playing donald would be even better

[Commando]

OHHHH SHIT 3-0!


Sad! Unfair the way they're treating him!

You're right- sometimes the judges keep a good poker face. It could very easily turn 3-0 as well.

Not a full ^^ swish but I'll take it.

In a 29-page decision, they rip Mr. T's administration apart and preliminarily find the EO unconstitutional.

[Maximus]

OHHHH SHIT 3-0!


Sad! Unfair the way they're treating him!



In a 29-page decision, they rip Mr. T's administration apart and preliminarily find the EO unconstitutional.

[Maximus]

So, since the SC is split 4-4, does this mean it is impossible, assuming the 4 vote together, that the ban will ever take effect again?

[Commando]

So, since the SC is split 4-4, does this mean it is impossible, assuming the 4 vote together, that the ban will ever take effect again?

Assuming Cert. is granted and they rule a split decision before a new Justice is in place.

[Maximus]

Assuming Cert. is granted and they rule a split decision before a new Justice is in place.

ah true. who knows when they will hear it. And I bet roberts would vote against it, same with kennedy.

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

Quick n Dirty summary:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/17-35105.pdf


1. States have standing b/c universities, students, and faculty are injured by the EO.

2. The government's argument that the President's EO is unreviewable is unfounded and stupid- even when he claims it's for 'national security,' it "runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy." [“[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).] (they go on and on destroying the argument that the President can do what he wants in the name of security- constitutionality is routinely reviewed). "In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."

The rest of the finding is unremarkable, but as a matter of process:

3. In order to stay the stay, DOJ has to prove the following:
“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”

"We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay."

So there you have it.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Embedded Tweet

"So-called court!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Commando]

Embedded Tweet

Maybe Trump is regretting impugning the authority of the judiciary? Naahh.




*By the way-- go read the comments under that tweet. God bless America!

[Moliere]

God bless America!!

[Commando]

As much as Trump shouts via Twitter that 'THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!' the DOJ attorney fumbled and farted and couldn't cobble together as much as an excuse for why it's a security concern when asked point blank.