MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
WASHINGTON — President Trump would be able to dispatch Secret Service agents to polling places nationwide during a federal election, a vast expansion of executive authority, if a provision in a Homeland Security reauthorization bill remains intact.
The rider has prompted outrage from more than a dozen top elections officials around the country, including Secretary of State William F. Galvin of Massachusetts, a Democrat, who says he is worried that it could be used to intimidate voters and said there is “no basis” for providing Trump with this new authority.
“This is worthy of a Third World country,” said Galvin in an interview. “I’m not going to tolerate people showing up to our polling places. I would not want to have federal agents showing up in largely Hispanic areas.”
“The potential for mischief here is enormous,” Galvin added.
The provision alarming him and others is a rider attached to legislation that would re-authorize the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation already cleared the House of Representatives with http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll403.xmlsupport.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs didn’t include the measure in the version of the bill it approved this week, according to Ben Voelkel, a spokesman for Senator Ron Johnson, who chairs the Senate committee.
The full Senate must still approve the bill, and then the two versions of the legislation would need to be reconciled before going to the president for approval.
The White House didn’t respond to a question about the measure.
MOON TOWNSHIP, Pa. — President Trump on Saturday again called for enacting the death penalty for drug dealers during a rally meant to bolster a struggling GOP candidate for a U.S. House seat here.
During the campaign event in this conservative western Pennsylvania district, the president also veered off into a list of other topics, including North Korea, his distaste for the news media and his own election victory 16 months ago.
Trump said that allowing prosecutors to seek the death penalty for drug dealers — an idea he said he got from Chinese President Xi Jinping — is “a discussion we have to start thinking about. I don’t know if this country’s ready for it.”
“Do you think the drug dealers who kill thousands of people during their lifetime, do you think they care who’s on a blue-ribbon committee?” Trump asked. “The only way to solve the drug problem is through toughness. When you catch a drug dealer, you’ve got to put him away for a long time.”
It was not the first time Trump had suggested executing drug dealers. Earlier this month, he described it as a way to fight the opioid epidemic. And on Friday, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration was considering policy changes to allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty.
But on Saturday his call for executing drug dealers got some of the most enthusiastic cheers of the night. As Trump spoke about policies on the issue in China and Singapore, dozens of people nodded their heads in agreement. “We love Trump,” one man yelled. A woman shouted: “Pass it!”
WASHINGTON — Why not just go with Dirk Diggler?
I mean, if you’re going to pick a fake name to pay off a porn star you’ve dallied with, why choose something bland like David Dennison?
If you are, after all, Donald Trump, the king of grandiosity, go for a name worthy of being Stormy Daniels’s real-life co-star.
A proper moniker is in order if Trump is going to be our first porn president.
Kim Jong-un can drag him away for talks about the relative size of their nuclear buttons. Justin Trudeau can tackle him for relief on tariffs. Robert Mueller can continue his imperturbable march through the Trump family’s field of lies.
But Donald Trump will not be deterred. He is determined to be our most shameless president, running a White House awash in salacious stories and louche characters.
...
The White House will keep trying to dismiss Daniels as she is on her “Make America Horny Again” tour, but she’s not going away. As Muddy Waters famously sang the blues, “They call it stormy Monday, but Tuesday’s just as bad; Wednesday’s worse, and Thursday’s also sad.”
President Trump has been saber-rattling against “sanctuary” jurisdictions since the early days of his campaign. He and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have frequently threatened to withhold federal funding and even to jail local officials who refuse to help deport immigrants. But until recently, their talk was mostly just that: talk.
This week, however, the Justice Department filed suit against California, challenging three state laws that make up the heart of its sanctuary policies.
The department is framing the lawsuit as a natural extension of the Obama administration’s successful challenge of an Arizona law that required state officers to engage in immigration enforcement. The logic is seductively simple: If it was illegal for Arizona to insert itself into federal immigration enforcement, then it is equally illegal for California to do so.
This framing has been so effective that the news media has been repeating the analogy without significant scrutiny. The comparison between the two lawsuits, however, is as flawed as it is simple.
To understand why, one needs to understand exactly what sanctuary laws do. They draw their name from the sanctuary movement of the 1980s. During that period, Central American refugees were routinely denied asylum because the United States government supported the regimes from which they had fled. In the face of this injustice, some religious leaders took steps to actively prevent federal immigration officers from arresting and deporting these vulnerable immigrants. It was, at times, a form of civil disobedience.
...
Today’s sanctuary laws, while bearing the same name, are markedly different. California and the hundreds of other places across the country with such laws and policies have done nothing whatsoever to actively interfere with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Rather, the defining characteristic of these laws is their passivity. They do not direct state officers to take any steps to interfere with federal enforcement efforts. Instead, they dictate that the local police and state officers simply do not assist in the federal government’s deportation agenda — that they do nothing.
Last edited:
WASHINGTON — A day after President Trump accepted an invitation to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea, the White House began planning on Friday a high-level diplomatic encounter so risky and seemingly far-fetched that some of Mr. Trump’s aides believe it will never happen.
The administration is already deliberating over the logistics and location of the meeting, with a senior State Department diplomat noting that the most obvious venue is the Peace House, a conference building in the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.
But several officials said Friday that the United States still needed to establish direct contact with North Korea to verify the message from Mr. Kim that was conveyed by South Korean envoys to Mr. Trump on Thursday. They warned that Mr. Kim could change his mind or break the promises he made about halting nuclear and missile tests during talks.
“The United States has made zero concessions, but North Korea has made some promises,” said the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “This meeting won’t take place without concrete actions that match the promises that have been made by North Korea.”
The White House later clarified that Ms. Sanders was not adding new preconditions to the meeting, but merely emphasizing the consequences if Mr. Kim conducted tests or interfered with joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea that are scheduled to begin at the end of March.
On Friday night, Mr. Trump reiterated on Twitter that “the deal with North Korea is very much in the making,” and that it would be, “if completed, a very good one for the World.”
“Time and place to be determined,” he said.
The White House’s muddled message highlighted the confusion sowed by Mr. Trump’s on-the-spot decision to meet Mr. Kim. Having built its North Korea policy on sanctions and threats of military action, the administration must now learn the language of engagement.
Lawyers associated with President Donald Trump are considering legal action to stop “60 Minutes” from airing an interview with Stephanie Clifford, the adult film performer and director who goes by Stormy Daniels, BuzzFeed News has learned.
“We understand from well placed sources they are preparing to file for a legal injunction to prevent it from airing,” a person informed of the preparations told BuzzFeed News on Saturday evening.
It was not immediately clear what legal argument the lawyers would be making to support the considered litigation, and Trump and his legal team often have threatened litigation without following through on those threats in the past.
Megyn Kelly said Saturday that she thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin “has something” on President Trump.
The host of “Megyn Kelly Today” recently sat down for an interview with Putin, and told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that she thinks the Russian president “knows some things" that Trump would not want out in public.
In the interview, she confronted Putin about why Trump speaks so highly of him, and said she does not think the Russian president likes Trump.
“I would not say that Putin likes Trump,” she said. “I did not glean that at all from him. I did glean that perhaps he has something on Donald Trump."
“I think there’s a very good chance Putin knows some things about Donald Trump that Mr. Trump does not want repeated publicly,” she added.
Kelly said that she doesn’t think Putin’s information has to do with the infamous dossier linking Trump to Russian nationals.
“My money’s not on the dossier,” she said. “I think it has to do with money and Trump’s early years dealing with the Russians back in the '90s, his facilities here in the United States.”
Cohen’s lawyer says he represents “EC LLC,” the entity created to pay Daniels. Big question is whether EC gets to stand in for Trump (DD in the contract) without saying they represent Trump himself.
Do corporations have life after death?
Do corporations have life after death?
7. If NYT printed the *actual, real-life* sentiments of today's conservative masses, it would print a bunch of paranoid, Fox-generated fairy tales and belligerent expressions of xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and proud, anti-intellectual ignorance.
