“One of the earliest, and dumbest, mantras of #TheResistance since Trump won the election was that Trump’s continued business interests violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. [ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8]
It was at the heart of the efforts to delegitimize Trump supported by the leftist activist group CREW, which used to be run by David Brock. Brock’s replacement as Vice Chair, Richard Painter, is a Twitter star and frequent cable news anti-Trump hothead who plays off his former position as an ethics advisor to George W. Bush.
Law professor Larry Tribe and other anti-Trump law professors, gave a false patina of credence to the claims.
Independent scholar and law lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman, assisted by law professor Josh Blackman submitted historical research as a friend of the court (amicus curiae), arguing that the Emoluments Clause did not apply to the President. That generated it’s own legal community fireworks, as the NY Times reported, ‘Lonely Scholar With Unusual Ideas’ Defends Trump, Igniting Legal Storm.
Yet there never was anything of substance to the Emolument Clause claim, and the Court just threw it out. A full copy of the Order (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of this post.
Buzzfeed’s legal reporter Chris Geidner summarizes:
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by one of the organizations claiming that President Trump’s continued ownership of his businesses create conflicts of interest that violate the Constitution.
The judge, US District Judge George B. Daniels, also ruled that it is up to Congress to decide whether there are any valid concerns raised by foreign governments doing business with Trump’s businesses and, if so, what to do about those concerns….
Daniels ruled that CREW lacked standing because it could not point to an injury it suffered due to the alleged constitutional violation and that the hospitality industry-related plaintiffs could not show that their claim of “competitor standing” could be redressed by the court — or even that the emoluments clauses were intended to protect competitors.
“CREW’s entire reason for being is to investigate and combat corruption and reduce the influence of money in politics through, among other things, education, advocacy, and litigation,” Daniels wrote. “CREW is thus not wasting resources by educating the public and issuing statements concerning the effects of Defendant’s alleged constitutional violations or even by filing suit; this is exactly how an organization like CREW spends its resources in the ordinary course.”
Discussing the the hospitality industry plaintiffs, he wrote, “Nothing in the text or the history of the Emoluments Clauses suggests that the Framers intended these provisions to protect anyone from competition.”
As to the Foreign Emoluments claim specifically, Daniels wrote that it “is an issue committed exclusively to Congress.” To that end, he continued, “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct.””
The press continues to ignore this story, but that’s gonna be harder to do now because Congressional Republicans are pursuing it. The WaPo tried a defense of Obama and his echo chamber, but even they had to admit there were no factual errors in the Politico piece that sparked it all.
“Lawmakers are launching an investigation into Obama-era efforts to thwart a longstanding U.S. investigation into the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah, according to multiple congressional officials and insiders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
The Obama administration worked behind the scenes to thwart a decade-long Drug Enforcement Agency investigation into Hezbollah and its highly lucrative drug trade in Latin America, according to a report in Politico. These officials are believed to have run interference on the investigation in order to avoid upsetting Iran and jeopardizing the landmark nuclear accord.
Senior Obama officials in the Treasury and Justice Departments are said to have undermined the DEA’s investigation at multiple junctures in order to avoid angering Hezbollah’s patron Iran, which could have jeopardized the landmark nuclear agreement.
Congress is now taking steps to formally investigate the reports, which multiple sources described to the Free Beacon as part of a larger Obama administration effort to overlook Iran’s global terror operations in order to cement the nuclear deal.”
———————————
“The Washington Post finally got around to covering the story, via its media reporter, Eric Wemple. The headline of Wemple’s article was that Obama officials dispute Meyer’s reporting, but Wemple noted that they had not been able to document any actual inaccuracies:
The pushback doesn’t cite any factual errors involving the story’s claims about shut-down investigations and the like.
Wemple quotes a Politico defense of the Meyer reporting:
Josh Meyer’s groundbreaking investigation was rigorously reported, deeply sourced, thoroughly vetted and is of significant public interest given the national security implications. POLITICO is proud of this story and believe it captures the complexity of the decision making by the Obama administration in pursuit of a deal with Iran that it viewed as a major foreign policy achievement. It’s hardly surprising that Obama loyalists have pushed back on the overall thrust of the article.
In his months of reporting the piece, Josh conducted an exhaustive review of government documents and court records and spoke with dozens of key participants at all levels of government. It’s worth noting that the principals mentioned in the piece were given the opportunity to comment and when they declined, POLITICO interviewed numerous sources who could speak on their behalf.
Also, Josh responded himself on television [Tuesday], specifically responding to the false claim that the article is based on uncorroborated complaints from disgruntled low-level officials. “I also talked to many, many dozens of other people to get a sort of ground truth and see what their allegations were when held up to the light of day. So this is not a story in 14,000 words where I was just taking spin from some people,” he said.
Given that Meyer’s reporting has held up to scrutiny so far, that the pushback is from the Iran Deal Echo Chamber, and that no factual errors have been pointed out, you’d think this would be receiving wider coverage in the major newspapers. But it’s not. Nor is Meyer being invited on TV much to talk about his report, something he lamented on Twitter:”
Happy to discuss my @politico stry on TV, especially given the orchestrated smear campaign, which STILL hasn’t contested a single fact in it https://t.co/0tgoGhpwWu
“The Republican chairmen of two Senate committees have received a statistical breakdown of sexual harassment settlements reached in the upper chamber over recent years but they haven’t yet released that information to the public, even though the House of Representatives has already released a decade’s worth of such data.
The two committees — the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee — have been given a statistical breakdown from the Congressional Office of Compliance (OOC) on sexual harassment claims in the Senate since 1997, information that would provide some understanding of how much taxpayer money has been used to settle such claims against senators or their aides.
The Appropriations Committee chairman, Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., requested the information from the Office of Compliance, his spokesman Stephen Worley confirmed. Cochran has not shared it with the all of his committee members yet, and Worley said they are trying to get “clarity” from the OOC on the information.
The chairman of the Rules Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who also received the data from the Office of Compliance, said through a spokeswoman that he won’t release the information as of now, pointing to confidentiality requirements.
“The Senate Rules Committee has received a statistical breakdown of settlement amounts involving Senate employing offices from 1997-2017 from the Office of Compliance,” the spokeswoman, Blair Bailey Taylor, said in a statement. “At this time, the Chairman is concerned with the reliability of the data provided by the Office of Compliance and the extent to which that data may implicate the various confidentiality requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act.”
The stonewalling continues, they’re trying to cover up the fact that they used the dossier as the basis for warrants from FISA knowing it was false. Once again, prosecutorial misconduct rears it’s ugly head. It’s time for McCabe to go.
“There are some important things the public doesn’t know about the so-called “Trump dossier,” such as whether the FBI used information from the dossier to win court permission to spy on Americans. But the most important question about the dossier is the simplest: Is it true?
In a seven-hour interview with the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer whether the bureau has been able to verify the substantive allegations in the dossier, or even to identify a substantive allegation that has been corroborated, according to sources familiar with the questioning.”
——————–
“McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.
McCabe’s questioners were not impressed. Page’s Moscow trip was reported in the press at the time it happened; the simple fact that he was in Russia was not a revelation. Lawmakers reminded McCabe that Page’s presence in Moscow was long established and then asked again: Was there anything more in the dossier that McCabe now knows to be true? McCabe, according to sources, said he did not know how to answer the question.
The dossier, of course, reported much more than the fact of Page’s travel to Moscow. It said Russians linked to Vladimir Putin offered Page money in exchange for persuading Trump to end U.S. sanctions on Russia. Specifically, it said Page met with Igor Sechin, the Putin-connected head of Rosneft, Russia’s giant, state-owned oil company, and also with Igor Divyekin, a top official in the Putin government. The dossier reported that Sechin offered to pay Page or other Trump associates tens of millions of dollars to end the sanctions.
None of that has been verified.
On a number of occasions, when asked about what in the dossier had been corroborated by the FBI, McCabe gave answers such as — these are not precise quotes — I can’t answer that, or I don’t know how to answer that. Indeed, that was McCabe’s answer when he was asked for the most important piece of information in the dossier that the FBI had been able to verify.
At one point, McCabe was reminded that another top FBI official had months ago told the House that the bureau had not been able to corroborate the dossier. McCabe’s response was noncommittal.
After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.
And that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier’s explosive allegations, either.”
Ricky @ 8:32 It will probably be the SCOTUS that sets the tone for religious liberties in the workplace with the ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission next year. But Trump is still making too many compromises. I’m not sure why he made this appointment. :–/
As for the midterms, I still don’t think it will be the blowout some predict, but I do acknowledge that Democrats have a substantially better shot now than they did before Republicans passed permanent tax breaks for big business and did away with net neutrality, opening the door for telecom content discrimination on the internet. In doing so, they’ve provided moderate Democrats with legitimate issues to run on.
At this point, I doubt I will be voting to send any of my Republicans back to DC this time. They have actively championed changes that I believe to be very detrimental. I am seriously looking at the Democrat running for Corker’s seat. I’m open to voting for a Trump-friendly Democrat if he is not a rabid pervert or abortion advocate, and can work with Republicans where desirable. Those are big ifs , but Former Gov. Phil Bredesen looks like he could fit the bill; we’ll see. Otherwise, I plan to just let ya’ll take care of Congress while I stay home and enjoy early Thanksgiving preparations and my favorite time of year. And of course, it’s always possible I’ll be making a trip to Gatlinburg for chocolate. I might do that either way. ;–)
That’s another good Dreher page, RickyW. Among the comments attached to it are this one, that may offer some explanation, although I really have no idea, and it’s not really much comfort:
I don’t like Feldblum, but this isn’t really Trump’s fault. With the independent, bipartisan federal commissions, the President often has to nominate commissioners from the other party, as the law limits the number of seats that a single party can hold. My understanding is that it’s long been the practice for the president to defer to senators (who vote to confirm these nominees) from the other party in selecting commissioners for these seats. Thus, Ajit Pai, the extremely conservative chair of the FCC, was initially nominated as a commissioner by Obama, though the two men probably disagree on just about everything. (Same goes for district court judges, which is why it’s disingenuous to, say, note that even Bush appointees struck down Trump’s travel ban.)
And this one, which is indirectly related to Dreher’s blog post:
The slippery slope no one sees now is that not only will businesses be forced to serve those who have lifestyles incompatible with religious teachings, customers are eventually going to be scrutinized based on patronage of various businesses and forced to patronize ones they morally object to.
The updated version of the law of merited impossibility – “no one is going to make you shop someplace you don’t want to, and when it happens, you bigots will deserve it!”
Of course it sounds completely ludicrous right now, but people warning about gay marriage and trans-lunacy fifteen or twenty years ago were dismissed as alarmist kooks.
I have brought this up with folks here and there online who favor forcing bakers to make certain cakes. I haven’t heard anything to assuage the concern that that may be a real possibility. At the least, it’s a logical outworking of arguments that support coercing private businesses to fall in line with the popular social causes of the last five minutes.
Here is the Steve Bannon article/interview from Vanity Fair. Bannon gives his account of his service in the White House and his relationship with Trump. Bannon is one weird guy. Language warning!
Steve Bannon has considered running for president. My Vanity Fair profile: https://t.co/2n0mNYwvkQ
David French sees the Trump glass as half-full and much better than it was when Bannon was in the White House:
Some good news, but character is still destiny, so storm clouds loom. At Year’s End, Conservatives Are Winning the GOP Civil War https://t.co/H00oCdw3kM via @NRO
@3:49 I think French is trying to inoculate the public debate for any Republican defeat in the midterms as arising from Trump’s character, as opposed to his policies. I notice this solid Never-Trumper has softened since Trump policies have veered toward business as usual. Not surprising I guess. Politics as usual. I guess ‘character’ wasn’t as supremely all-important as they thought—not when there’s a real and permanent tax break on the table. :–)
Debra, I urge you to suspend judgment on the tax bill. Free trader Scott Lincicome found this hidden incentive for folks to invest in areas full of idle Democrats and Trumpers:
Personally, I saw the tax bill as like a condemned prisoner’s last meal. You may have read how men on death row eat a steak, a hamburger, two hot dogs and two banana splits before their execution. Stomach ache? In two hours, they will be dead! Republicans, their donors and supporters know that the Democrats are taking over in 2018 and 2020, and they may not see another tax cut in their lifetimes. Therefore, grab all you can get now!
Debra @ 4:30 French was a Never-Trumper before the election, but like Rich Lowry he was always looking to give Trump the benefit of the doubt (time and time again) unlike some of us. In the article, he makes it clear he still believes that Trump’s character could still destroy his presidency.
You raise a very important issue when you discuss who or what is going to get the blame for the 2018 Republican disaster at the polls. That is why I would like to see Paul Ryan resign on January 1, 2018 and a true Trumpkin sycophant like Devin Nunes as his replacement. I would like 2018 (and 2020 as well) to be a clear battle between Trumpers and Democrats. May the best demagogues win.
@4:37 Ricky, the grab-all-you-can-get strategy is rarely a good one. But I’m keeping an open mind on the tax cuts mostly. The unfortunate thing for Republicans is that the results will not be fully known before the election. So even if the results are good, it won’t help in November.
Debra, I agree that it will take a while for the full effect of the tax cut to take hold. However, as Jay Cost implied, the problem is not the economy. We are at 3% annual growth and virtually full employment (for those looking for work). The problem is the “erratic and bizarre” behavior.
The question then is: What would happen if Trump stopped lying and stopped “rage Tweeting”?My son says that is a silly question because we won’t or can’t stop. However, I’m not so sure. Things have gotten a little better since General Kelly came on board. I think if he could eliminate just the lies and the crazy Tweets, his approval rate could rise to near 50% as long as the economy stays good. That would give him and his party a chance.
Wandering Views 
How the Tax Bill may affect the overall political situation:
LikeLike
Importantly, 538 is now posting analysis on the bet which Debra and I made:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrats-wave-could-turn-into-a-flood/
LikeLike
Dreher is upset this morning about Trump support for Organized Perversion:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/
LikeLike
The Resistance is futile.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/court-throws-out-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-against-trump/
“One of the earliest, and dumbest, mantras of #TheResistance since Trump won the election was that Trump’s continued business interests violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. [ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8]
It was at the heart of the efforts to delegitimize Trump supported by the leftist activist group CREW, which used to be run by David Brock. Brock’s replacement as Vice Chair, Richard Painter, is a Twitter star and frequent cable news anti-Trump hothead who plays off his former position as an ethics advisor to George W. Bush.
Law professor Larry Tribe and other anti-Trump law professors, gave a false patina of credence to the claims.
Independent scholar and law lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman, assisted by law professor Josh Blackman submitted historical research as a friend of the court (amicus curiae), arguing that the Emoluments Clause did not apply to the President. That generated it’s own legal community fireworks, as the NY Times reported, ‘Lonely Scholar With Unusual Ideas’ Defends Trump, Igniting Legal Storm.
Yet there never was anything of substance to the Emolument Clause claim, and the Court just threw it out. A full copy of the Order (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of this post.
Buzzfeed’s legal reporter Chris Geidner summarizes:
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by one of the organizations claiming that President Trump’s continued ownership of his businesses create conflicts of interest that violate the Constitution.
The judge, US District Judge George B. Daniels, also ruled that it is up to Congress to decide whether there are any valid concerns raised by foreign governments doing business with Trump’s businesses and, if so, what to do about those concerns….
Daniels ruled that CREW lacked standing because it could not point to an injury it suffered due to the alleged constitutional violation and that the hospitality industry-related plaintiffs could not show that their claim of “competitor standing” could be redressed by the court — or even that the emoluments clauses were intended to protect competitors.
“CREW’s entire reason for being is to investigate and combat corruption and reduce the influence of money in politics through, among other things, education, advocacy, and litigation,” Daniels wrote. “CREW is thus not wasting resources by educating the public and issuing statements concerning the effects of Defendant’s alleged constitutional violations or even by filing suit; this is exactly how an organization like CREW spends its resources in the ordinary course.”
Discussing the the hospitality industry plaintiffs, he wrote, “Nothing in the text or the history of the Emoluments Clauses suggests that the Framers intended these provisions to protect anyone from competition.”
As to the Foreign Emoluments claim specifically, Daniels wrote that it “is an issue committed exclusively to Congress.” To that end, he continued, “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct.””
LikeLike
The press continues to ignore this story, but that’s gonna be harder to do now because Congressional Republicans are pursuing it. The WaPo tried a defense of Obama and his echo chamber, but even they had to admit there were no factual errors in the Politico piece that sparked it all.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/congress-to-investigate-obama-scheme-to-nix-investigation-into-hezbollah-terrorists/
“Lawmakers are launching an investigation into Obama-era efforts to thwart a longstanding U.S. investigation into the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah, according to multiple congressional officials and insiders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
The Obama administration worked behind the scenes to thwart a decade-long Drug Enforcement Agency investigation into Hezbollah and its highly lucrative drug trade in Latin America, according to a report in Politico. These officials are believed to have run interference on the investigation in order to avoid upsetting Iran and jeopardizing the landmark nuclear accord.
Senior Obama officials in the Treasury and Justice Departments are said to have undermined the DEA’s investigation at multiple junctures in order to avoid angering Hezbollah’s patron Iran, which could have jeopardized the landmark nuclear agreement.
Congress is now taking steps to formally investigate the reports, which multiple sources described to the Free Beacon as part of a larger Obama administration effort to overlook Iran’s global terror operations in order to cement the nuclear deal.”
———————————
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/iran-deal-echo-chamber-attacks-politico-report-on-hezbollah-drug-running-bombshell/
“The Washington Post finally got around to covering the story, via its media reporter, Eric Wemple. The headline of Wemple’s article was that Obama officials dispute Meyer’s reporting, but Wemple noted that they had not been able to document any actual inaccuracies:
The pushback doesn’t cite any factual errors involving the story’s claims about shut-down investigations and the like.
Wemple quotes a Politico defense of the Meyer reporting:
Josh Meyer’s groundbreaking investigation was rigorously reported, deeply sourced, thoroughly vetted and is of significant public interest given the national security implications. POLITICO is proud of this story and believe it captures the complexity of the decision making by the Obama administration in pursuit of a deal with Iran that it viewed as a major foreign policy achievement. It’s hardly surprising that Obama loyalists have pushed back on the overall thrust of the article.
In his months of reporting the piece, Josh conducted an exhaustive review of government documents and court records and spoke with dozens of key participants at all levels of government. It’s worth noting that the principals mentioned in the piece were given the opportunity to comment and when they declined, POLITICO interviewed numerous sources who could speak on their behalf.
Also, Josh responded himself on television [Tuesday], specifically responding to the false claim that the article is based on uncorroborated complaints from disgruntled low-level officials. “I also talked to many, many dozens of other people to get a sort of ground truth and see what their allegations were when held up to the light of day. So this is not a story in 14,000 words where I was just taking spin from some people,” he said.
Given that Meyer’s reporting has held up to scrutiny so far, that the pushback is from the Iran Deal Echo Chamber, and that no factual errors have been pointed out, you’d think this would be receiving wider coverage in the major newspapers. But it’s not. Nor is Meyer being invited on TV much to talk about his report, something he lamented on Twitter:”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part of the problem is no accountability. And they want to keep it that way…..
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-hold-back-sexual-harassment-data-n831871
“The Republican chairmen of two Senate committees have received a statistical breakdown of sexual harassment settlements reached in the upper chamber over recent years but they haven’t yet released that information to the public, even though the House of Representatives has already released a decade’s worth of such data.
The two committees — the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee — have been given a statistical breakdown from the Congressional Office of Compliance (OOC) on sexual harassment claims in the Senate since 1997, information that would provide some understanding of how much taxpayer money has been used to settle such claims against senators or their aides.
The Appropriations Committee chairman, Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., requested the information from the Office of Compliance, his spokesman Stephen Worley confirmed. Cochran has not shared it with the all of his committee members yet, and Worley said they are trying to get “clarity” from the OOC on the information.
The chairman of the Rules Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who also received the data from the Office of Compliance, said through a spokeswoman that he won’t release the information as of now, pointing to confidentiality requirements.
“The Senate Rules Committee has received a statistical breakdown of settlement amounts involving Senate employing offices from 1997-2017 from the Office of Compliance,” the spokeswoman, Blair Bailey Taylor, said in a statement. “At this time, the Chairman is concerned with the reliability of the data provided by the Office of Compliance and the extent to which that data may implicate the various confidentiality requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act.”
LikeLike
The stonewalling continues, they’re trying to cover up the fact that they used the dossier as the basis for warrants from FISA knowing it was false. Once again, prosecutorial misconduct rears it’s ugly head. It’s time for McCabe to go.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-frustrated-lawmakers-pressed-fbis-mccabe-for-answers-on-trump-dossier-they-got-nothing/article/2644225
“There are some important things the public doesn’t know about the so-called “Trump dossier,” such as whether the FBI used information from the dossier to win court permission to spy on Americans. But the most important question about the dossier is the simplest: Is it true?
In a seven-hour interview with the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer whether the bureau has been able to verify the substantive allegations in the dossier, or even to identify a substantive allegation that has been corroborated, according to sources familiar with the questioning.”
——————–
“McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.
McCabe’s questioners were not impressed. Page’s Moscow trip was reported in the press at the time it happened; the simple fact that he was in Russia was not a revelation. Lawmakers reminded McCabe that Page’s presence in Moscow was long established and then asked again: Was there anything more in the dossier that McCabe now knows to be true? McCabe, according to sources, said he did not know how to answer the question.
The dossier, of course, reported much more than the fact of Page’s travel to Moscow. It said Russians linked to Vladimir Putin offered Page money in exchange for persuading Trump to end U.S. sanctions on Russia. Specifically, it said Page met with Igor Sechin, the Putin-connected head of Rosneft, Russia’s giant, state-owned oil company, and also with Igor Divyekin, a top official in the Putin government. The dossier reported that Sechin offered to pay Page or other Trump associates tens of millions of dollars to end the sanctions.
None of that has been verified.
On a number of occasions, when asked about what in the dossier had been corroborated by the FBI, McCabe gave answers such as — these are not precise quotes — I can’t answer that, or I don’t know how to answer that. Indeed, that was McCabe’s answer when he was asked for the most important piece of information in the dossier that the FBI had been able to verify.
At one point, McCabe was reminded that another top FBI official had months ago told the House that the bureau had not been able to corroborate the dossier. McCabe’s response was noncommittal.
After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.
And that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier’s explosive allegations, either.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky @ 8:32 It will probably be the SCOTUS that sets the tone for religious liberties in the workplace with the ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission next year. But Trump is still making too many compromises. I’m not sure why he made this appointment. :–/
As for the midterms, I still don’t think it will be the blowout some predict, but I do acknowledge that Democrats have a substantially better shot now than they did before Republicans passed permanent tax breaks for big business and did away with net neutrality, opening the door for telecom content discrimination on the internet. In doing so, they’ve provided moderate Democrats with legitimate issues to run on.
At this point, I doubt I will be voting to send any of my Republicans back to DC this time. They have actively championed changes that I believe to be very detrimental. I am seriously looking at the Democrat running for Corker’s seat. I’m open to voting for a Trump-friendly Democrat if he is not a rabid pervert or abortion advocate, and can work with Republicans where desirable. Those are big ifs , but Former Gov. Phil Bredesen looks like he could fit the bill; we’ll see. Otherwise, I plan to just let ya’ll take care of Congress while I stay home and enjoy early Thanksgiving preparations and my favorite time of year. And of course, it’s always possible I’ll be making a trip to Gatlinburg for chocolate. I might do that either way. ;–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s another good Dreher page, RickyW. Among the comments attached to it are this one, that may offer some explanation, although I really have no idea, and it’s not really much comfort:
I don’t like Feldblum, but this isn’t really Trump’s fault. With the independent, bipartisan federal commissions, the President often has to nominate commissioners from the other party, as the law limits the number of seats that a single party can hold. My understanding is that it’s long been the practice for the president to defer to senators (who vote to confirm these nominees) from the other party in selecting commissioners for these seats. Thus, Ajit Pai, the extremely conservative chair of the FCC, was initially nominated as a commissioner by Obama, though the two men probably disagree on just about everything. (Same goes for district court judges, which is why it’s disingenuous to, say, note that even Bush appointees struck down Trump’s travel ban.)
And this one, which is indirectly related to Dreher’s blog post:
The slippery slope no one sees now is that not only will businesses be forced to serve those who have lifestyles incompatible with religious teachings, customers are eventually going to be scrutinized based on patronage of various businesses and forced to patronize ones they morally object to.
The updated version of the law of merited impossibility – “no one is going to make you shop someplace you don’t want to, and when it happens, you bigots will deserve it!”
Of course it sounds completely ludicrous right now, but people warning about gay marriage and trans-lunacy fifteen or twenty years ago were dismissed as alarmist kooks.
I have brought this up with folks here and there online who favor forcing bakers to make certain cakes. I haven’t heard anything to assuage the concern that that may be a real possibility. At the least, it’s a logical outworking of arguments that support coercing private businesses to fall in line with the popular social causes of the last five minutes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here is the Steve Bannon article/interview from Vanity Fair. Bannon gives his account of his service in the White House and his relationship with Trump. Bannon is one weird guy. Language warning!
LikeLiked by 1 person
David French sees the Trump glass as half-full and much better than it was when Bannon was in the White House:
LikeLiked by 1 person
@3:49 I think French is trying to inoculate the public debate for any Republican defeat in the midterms as arising from Trump’s character, as opposed to his policies. I notice this solid Never-Trumper has softened since Trump policies have veered toward business as usual. Not surprising I guess. Politics as usual. I guess ‘character’ wasn’t as supremely all-important as they thought—not when there’s a real and permanent tax break on the table. :–)
LikeLike
Debra, I urge you to suspend judgment on the tax bill. Free trader Scott Lincicome found this hidden incentive for folks to invest in areas full of idle Democrats and Trumpers:
Personally, I saw the tax bill as like a condemned prisoner’s last meal. You may have read how men on death row eat a steak, a hamburger, two hot dogs and two banana splits before their execution. Stomach ache? In two hours, they will be dead! Republicans, their donors and supporters know that the Democrats are taking over in 2018 and 2020, and they may not see another tax cut in their lifetimes. Therefore, grab all you can get now!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra @ 4:30 French was a Never-Trumper before the election, but like Rich Lowry he was always looking to give Trump the benefit of the doubt (time and time again) unlike some of us. In the article, he makes it clear he still believes that Trump’s character could still destroy his presidency.
You raise a very important issue when you discuss who or what is going to get the blame for the 2018 Republican disaster at the polls. That is why I would like to see Paul Ryan resign on January 1, 2018 and a true Trumpkin sycophant like Devin Nunes as his replacement. I would like 2018 (and 2020 as well) to be a clear battle between Trumpers and Democrats. May the best demagogues win.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jay Cost with a good summary of 2017 in two Tweets:
No. 1:
https://twitter.com/jaycosttws/status/943674736613175301
LikeLike
And:
https://twitter.com/jaycosttws/status/943675038481485824
LikeLike
@4:37 Ricky, the grab-all-you-can-get strategy is rarely a good one. But I’m keeping an open mind on the tax cuts mostly. The unfortunate thing for Republicans is that the results will not be fully known before the election. So even if the results are good, it won’t help in November.
LikeLike
Debra, I agree that it will take a while for the full effect of the tax cut to take hold. However, as Jay Cost implied, the problem is not the economy. We are at 3% annual growth and virtually full employment (for those looking for work). The problem is the “erratic and bizarre” behavior.
The question then is: What would happen if Trump stopped lying and stopped “rage Tweeting”?My son says that is a silly question because we won’t or can’t stop. However, I’m not so sure. Things have gotten a little better since General Kelly came on board. I think if he could eliminate just the lies and the crazy Tweets, his approval rate could rise to near 50% as long as the economy stays good. That would give him and his party a chance.
LikeLiked by 1 person