Yabberz for AndroidDownload

House Files Protection For Mueller; McConnell Dismisses Attempts In Senate

72
Posts
2015
Points
21
Users

      The Russia Probe has caused conflict among members in Congress. Along with the Democrats, some Republicans in both the House and the Senate are seeking protection from the dismissal of Robert Mueller, but it looks like that probably won't happen.

      In the House of Representatives, some members have been making noise about the need to protect Mueller from Trump. Representative Dent wants to keep Mueller from being fired, but he has become so disillusioned that he will be leaving next month instead of waiting until the end of the year.

      On Friday, Dent filed legislation that would protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation from any attempt by Trump or his administration to remove him. He's one of three House Republicans who have signaled support for such a measure in recent days.

      Dent clashed with Trump during a brutal 2017 fight over replacing Obamacare, which ultimately failed. At the time, the New York Times Magazine reported that Trump confronted Dent during a White House meeting and accused him of "destroying the Republican Party."

      Rep. Charlie Dent has been in elected office since 1991, Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AFP/Getty Images

      It should come as no surprise that Senate Republicans who have voiced the need to have legislation that protects Mueller from Trump are being dismissed by Mitch McConnell.

      In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee wanted to put forth a bill that would shield Mueller from being fired by Trump's Administration, but McConnell is not allowing it. He says that such a bill will never see the Senate floor.

      Mitch McConnell is just saying no.There will be no Senate vote on protecting special counsel Robert Mueller.

      The Senate majority leader said on Tuesday that the bill is "not necessary" and that Trump would never sign it. And though McConnell doesn't want Trump to fire Mueller, he is making sure that the only viable legislation to offer a backstop for Mueller won't see the Senate floor.

      "I'm the one who decides what we take to the floor. That's my responsibility as the majority leader and we'll not be having this on the floor of the Senate," McConnell told Fox News's Neil Cavuto on Tuesday afternoon.

      Mitch McConnell is pictured. | Getty Images

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImageSenate


      Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded that McConnell is making a "mistake."

      "We ought to head off a constitutional crisis at the pass, rather than waiting until it’s too late. I hope the Judiciary Committee moves forward with a bill, and that members of Senator McConnell’s caucus push him to reconsider," Schumer said.

      To read the entire reports, click on the following links

      https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/charlie-dent-resigns-528605

      https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/mueller-mconnell-russia-probe-531326


      more less
      Pundit Post

      N.Y. Attorney General Seeks Power To Bypass Presidential Pardons

      26
      Posts
      455
      Points
      11
      Users

          This is one of the biggest concerns with respect to Trump and his potential for granting wholesale pardons to his aides who have committed crimes while Trump himself is being investigated for crimes. Trump even went on to ask if he could pardon himself which makes one wonder just how guilty is Trump and exactly why does Trump think he needs to pardon himself?


          One of the reasons for impeaching Trump as fast as humanly possible is to prevent Trump from protecting the guilty and giving out wholesale pardons to his former aides and associates.

          Granting pardons to people convicted of crimes associated with an ongoing investigation of the current president handing out these pardons should not be allowed. That isn't a pardon but rather a flagrant abuse of the law. If Trump decides to pardon those people Mueller is investigating could this not impact the impeachment of Trump which is not allowed as defined in our Constitution?


          https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/schnei...

          more less

          Pope Francis Declares ‘There Is No Hell’ - Vatican Disagrees

          74
          Posts
          1585
          Points
          29
          Users

              Oh my goodness! We can't allow this to happen. I mean think about it, that would be the end of Christianity and a host of other religions too.

              But think for a moment...

              What would happen if the Pope wasn't corrected and it was announced, "there is no hell"? Would the world go into a flux of demise? Would murders increase? Theft be a huge problem? Would religious literature disappear and humans go into a frenzy of sin? Severe riots all over the world would happen?

              Or would the world call it fake news and shun it? Or would it be the world leaders that step up to the plate and denounce the Pope and the Vatican?

              http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhum...

              more less

              Gorsuch Swings Against Trump In Deportation Case

              64
              Posts
              980
              Points
              21
              Users

                  The decision, the first in which Gorsuch swung the court by joining the four Democrat-appointed justices, could complicate the administration's drive to expel 'criminal aliens.'

                  In a surprise decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with Liberals in a federal case that involved foreign visitors, violence and deportation. Evidently the law is not clear, and as a result, justice Gorsuch ruled that deportation based on an unclear law was unconstitutional.

                  This is the first case in which he has sided with the court's four Liberal justices, and of course Trump was certainly not too happy about that.

                  Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with his liberal colleagues that a clause in federal law allowing deportation of foreigners found guilty of "a crime of violence" is unconstitutional because it is overly vague. | Saul Loeb/Getty Image

                  In a decision that ruffled feathers at the White House, Gorsuch agreed with the court's four Democratic-appointed justices that a clause in federal law allowing the deportation of foreigners found guilty of "a crime of violence" is unconstitutional because it is overly vague.

                  "What does that mean?" Gorsuch asked in a concurring opinion. "Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows."

                  "The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more," Gorsuch added.

                  Continue reading: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/immigrat...
                  more less
                  Pundit Post

                  Parents Of Children Who Died In Sandy Hook Shooting Sue Alex Jones

                  76
                  Posts
                  1655
                  Points
                  29
                  Users

                      It's about time someone took on this sick depraved psychopath Alex Jones. I mean how sick does one have to be to create some bogus conspiracy about the mass murder of all those children who died at Sandy Hook elementary school was a hoax? It is no wonder that the courts ruled against Jone's request to get sole custody of their children. Who would want such a person around anyone's children? I so hope Jones not only loses this lawsuit but that other parents from Sandy Hook sue him as well. We need to get sick people like Jones off the air.

                      Listen to what his wife had to say about him.


                      http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/383467-pare...

                      more less

                      What To Make Of James Comey's Interview

                      123
                      Posts
                      2530
                      Points
                      34
                      Users

                          First question one would ask themselves after watching/listening to the interview would most likely be, what did I learn from this interview? I would have to say just about all of which was discussed between Comey and Stephanopoulos had already been made public. What really did come through in that interview was how uncomfortable Comey was around Trump. This interview didn't really have any earth shattering revelations but mostly centered around Comey's personal feelings and observations during his short time as head of the FBI under Trump's tenure in the White House. Should we have expected some real dirt on Trump to come from this interview? What I personally was hoping to hear about was the day to day on goings at the White House and how Trump viewed the role of the FBI. Instead Comey spoke of his regrets especially his participation in the Hillary investigation and didn't really go into any depth except to say he did have regrets and didn't know if he really did or did not directly play a role in preventing Hillary from winning the election.



                          Okay, I got it. Comey was not at all comfortable around Trump especially when Trump had these one on one conversations with Comey. Comey felt that these conversations should not have taken place and in hindsight he should have declined the offer to meet one on one with Trump. Well if Comey did feel these one on one meetings with Trump were inappropriate then why after the first one continue to meet with Trump culminating in a one on one dinner at the White House.


                          What I got from this interview is that Comey conducted himself in a very civil and mature manner and even in his criticism of folks he felt had let him down or slighted him, yet he still maintained his civility and did not once try to turn this interview into a mud slinging contest. You just wait. Trump has already long before this interview demeaned and degraded Comey with his childish vulgar insults. Wait, wait, there will be more to come because Trump cannot allow Comey, or anyone, have the last word. Wait for the rantings of a 10 year old to come.

                          Was this really the in depth interview everyone was expecting or was this some slick public relations move conducted to sell his book?


                          For those who missed the interview and are interested in reading the transcript then click the link below.


                          http://time.com/5241081/james-comey-abc-interview-...

                          more less

                          Mom Is Running For Political Office

                          71
                          Posts
                          2106
                          Points
                          21
                          Users

                              Because the current state of affairs in the USA (and even the world) has so many mothers of young children filled with dismay, and has triggered deep concern for their children's future, more women of young children are running for political office - in a surge of Democratic candidates.

                              In the past, women have waited until their children were older and could fend for themselves before running for political office - that is if they chose to run at all. The United States has few helpful social supports for working families, and in the past it has been seen as a barrier to political office for women to have young children, since so many women are expected to manage the majority of responsibilities in the home.

                              But now, that seems to be changing since Trump was elected and the Republicans have held the majority in both houses. Rallying rhetoric includes women's disgust with lack of affordable health care and gun control, education's decline, and lack of concern for kids with disabilities.

                              According to the author of the following piece, "Motherhood in this midterm season is not just a credential for public office, it's a potent weapon."


                              CreditKiersten Essenpreis

                              By SUSAN CHIRA (edited for length)

                              The symbols of motherhood in American political life have long been comforting and predictable: a gauzy family tableau in campaign ads, with smiling kids gathering for a meal. The ads were meant to disarm voters, to show them that women were running for office to take care of people. It wasn’t about personal ambition — it was about serving others, the way a mom would.

                              That’s not the motherhood of 2018 political ads. Motherhood in this midterm season is not just a credential for public office. It’s a potent weapon.

                              Several Democratic candidates tell wrenching stories of their sick children, explaining that the prospect of losing their health insurance had prompted the candidates to run for office. At least two women running for governor, in Wisconsin and Maryland, introduced themselves to voters with scenes of them breast-feeding. And Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who on Monday became the first senator to give birth while in office, has been pressing to change a Senate prohibition on bringing children onto the floor, which could impede a breast-feeding mother’s voting.

                              A few women with very young children have decided to run, despite research suggesting that voters can be uneasy about how female candidates with young children will juggle public and private duties. Instead, these candidates are proclaiming that their expertise with multitasking equips them to cut through gridlock.

                              Health care is a rallying cry, particularly among Democratic candidates. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, running for Congress in Illinois, told the story of her son Jack’s battle with a life-threatening illness. He was placed in a coma, and doctors warned that he could emerge with brain damage. Although he fully recovered, Ms. Londrigan said she decided to run for office when the House passed its attempted repeal of Obamacare in May and she watched her congressman at a triumphant appearance with President Trump. “Seeing them celebrate taking health care away from people — it was like a knife to the heart,” she said.

                              Several candidates who are mothers cite fears for their children as the root of their support or opposition to gun control. Kelda Roys, who is running in a crowded primary for governor of Wisconsin, described picking up her daughter at preschool and hearing about how she had to hide and be very quiet. Her 3-year-old was describing an active-shooter drill.

                              Women running for office in both parties have long used their status as mothers to explain their policy stances. Kelly Ayotte, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, ran an ad that cited her children as a reason to cut wasteful spending, said Kelly Dittmar, a political scientist at the Center for American Women and Politics. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican of Washington, who gave birth to three children while in Congress, cited her son’s Down syndrome to object to those who would abort fetuses with the condition.
                              By and large, though, Republican portraits of motherhood have tended to be more traditional, Ms. Dittmar said.

                              By contrast, this newest group of Democratic candidates seems more outspoken and unconventional. They do not appear to be concerned about research suggesting that motherhood should be conveyed in safe doses — some pictures of the children but not too many lest voters doubt women’s credentials.

                              Continue Reading https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/sunday-review/m...

                              more less
                              Pundit Post

                              Yabberz Search

                              Topics Found

                              Members

                              Posts

                              Load More Posts
                              Hi There,

                              Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

                              Do you have an email group that shares news items?

                              It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

                              This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home
                              0

                                  Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                                  Click to confirm you want to see post

                                  more less

                                  Posts
                                  Points
                                  Users
                                      more less
                                      Block User
                                      This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock this user, visit the blocked user tab found on your about me profile page. Click confirm block to complete.
                                      loading...
                                      Last Heard: a minute ago
                                      Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                      Followers: 100
                                      Points: 100,000