12 thoughts on “News/Politics 3-20-19

  1. good morning everyone but Jo.
    Good evening Jo.
    Spring will spring this evening.]
    I will tell you about our encounterwith each other last night when i get a chance.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. First up, another win for Trump and border enforcement. 🙂


    “The Trump administration scored a big win in the Supreme Court today in the case of Nielsen v. Preap. Equally important, the court’s focus on statutory language and interpretation bodes well for the Trump administration at such point as the litigation over Trump’s Declaration of National Emergency makes its way to the Supreme Court.

    The Opinion is complicated, with multiple concurring opinions. But at a macro level, it split on the conservative-liberal line, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the conservatives.

    The issue before the Supreme Court was:

    Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

    The importance of the case was previewed last October in The Atlantic, which noted the key importance of the statutory language:

    The stakes are higher in a Supreme Court case to be heard next Wednesday. Nielsen v. Preap may determine whether thousands of longtime residents of the U.S. face indefinite detention without a hearing. And as in Frigaliment, the heart of the dispute is an everyday word: when. Does it mean “any time the government decides after a stated event, whether days, weeks, or years later” or “immediately upon the happening of the event”?

    Nielsen is a class action brought by a group of immigrants in the Ninth Circuit who have been or are being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section authorizes federal authorities to detain any alien who may be subject to “removal,” the technical term for deportation. The term covers a lot of immigrants—border crossers arrested after entering the U.S. illegally, tourists or students who have overstayed their visas, and lawful permanent residents who have committed certain crimes….

    This is the issue in Nielsen v. Preap: It is not whether authorities can detain these aliens; they can. But does the statute really deny bond hearings to all of them—longtime residents of the U.S. who were convicted of minor offenses five, 10, 15, or more years ago? What if a person has long ago been released and has returned to a community, established a family and put down roots, and lived a blameless life since that brush with the law? In other words, what if the immigrant would otherwise be a prime candidate for bond?

    These aliens can be detained and deported. There is no question that iceagents can show up at their homes, arrest them, and hold them for removal proceedings. But does the when language mean they don’t get a bond hearing? If a noncitizen has left prison and established a new life, did Congress, in writing the statute, really mean to deny that person the chance to show an immigration court that he or she will show up for a removal hearing, the way other “noncriminal” aliens can?

    The bottom line is that the government has the power to indefinitely hold criminal aliens who are released from custody, so that they can be deported, even if the alien was released from custody long ago, without providing a bond hearing. The 9th Circuit had ruled that the lapse of time between prison release and detention could require the government to provide a bond hearing. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed, relying on the statutory language.”



    “The Supreme Court on Tuesday backed the Trump administration’s ability to detain immigrants with criminal records at any time and hold them indefinitely while they await deportation, even if they served time for their offense years ago.

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit’s finding that the mandatory detention requirement for certain immigrants with criminal records applies only if an immigrant is detained by officials as soon as he or she is released from jail.”

    And now let the long overdue deportation begin.


  3. It’s a joke, just not a funny one. There’s nothing amusing about ambush journalism.

    But make no mistake, it is a joke.


    “I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that one of the most juvenile and narcissistic professions continues its rapid descent into complete parody, but here I am.

    Tuesday, winners of the Cronkite awards were announced and you would know that CNN won for “Excellence in Television Political Journalism,” specifically for their Parkland Shooting Townhall following the Valentine’s Day school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool. “Cronkite Award Winners prove facts matter,” reads the official release.

    The entire spectacle, and that’s what it was, was little more than political propaganda and exploitation of traumatized adolescents to further a sad, pathetic, and anti-Constitutional agenda.

    During the town hall, CNN gave airtime and a platform to now-disgraced Sheriff Israel, who was later forced out of his job. It was revealed after the fact, after he spent time on national cable news, that Israel knew Deputy Peterson did not enter the school during the shooting and instead, stayed outside during the massacre. But that was the least of the town hall’s issues.

    Dana Loesch, spokeswoman for the NRA, who attended the town hall, was not pleased with the award announcement:”


  4. More….



  5. Trump found his wall money. He plans to use unused/extra funds from the military’s budget.


    “Pentagon Finds $12.8 Billion to Fund Trump’s Border Wall

    The list contains projects that have funds “in excess of the amount needed.”

    “The Department of Defense has released a 20-page spreadsheet of military projects that have more funds than needed, which means adds up to $12.8 billion for President Donald Trump’s border wall.

    From The Washington Examiner:

    The Pentagon’s list said it has found possible funding sources that are “in excess of the amount needed.”

    But it’s not clear which projects the Defense Department will draw from. Some states that have been allocated big chunks of money that haven’t been spent could see a hit.

    California, for example, was identified as having more than $700 million in unused Army and Navy military construction that could be used. Hawaii has more than $400 million that could be used.

    More than $200 million in similar funding allocated for Hawaii, Maine, New York, North Carolina, Guam, Germany, Guam, and Guantanamo Bay Cuba are also on the list.

    The Pentagon stated:

    To identify the potential pool of sources of military construction funds, DoD will apply the following criteria:

    • No military construction projects that already have been awarded, and no military construction projects with FY 2019 award dates will be impacted.

    • No military housing, barracks, or dormitory projects will be impacted.

    • The pool of potential military construction projects from which funding could be reallocated to support the construction of border barrier are solely projects with award dates after September 30, 2019.

    For comprehensiveness, attached is a complete pool of all projects that were unawarded as of December 31, 2018. Once the above criteria is applied, the pool has a total value that is in excess of the amount needed to source potential section 2808 projects. The appearance of any project within the pool does not mean that the project will, in fact, be used to source section 2808 projects.”

    Here’s the pdf.



    Now get to building it.


  6. And now, let’s spend a little time pointing out how wrong Never-Trumpers, Democrats, and the media have been in all this.

    No Deep State, huh?


    “Fox News’ chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge believes a claim by Republican North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows of a coordinated effort to hurt President Trump — including “sitting ambassadors,” the FBI and the Department of Justice — also likely involves someone in the State Department.

    “I think the congressman is referring to someone within the State Department based on my reporting,” Herridge said Tuesday on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.” “Because we have a pretty good sense now from these transcripts that have been revealed and then also records that were unsealed at the end last week in the defamation suit with BuzzFeed that … the government network was being pulsed with the dossier in the final months of the campaign and then during the transition period. And that it was coming at the FBI and Justice Department through many different lanes or many different avenues, and the objective was to lend it credibility.”

    Herridge added, “My recollection is there is a tie into the State Department, so we’ll see exactly who Congressman Meadows is referring to … but that is where I think it’s going.”


  7. One of these deep staters is lying. Still. Again.

    And it’s not Trump.


    “Did Peter Strzok Lie, Or Was There A Spy Targeting The Trump Campaign?

    And Lisa Page’s testimony creates yet a bigger problem since her statement contradicts DOJ lawyer Bruce Ohr’s testimony to the House committee.”


    “Page’s testimony further negates any possibility that Steele was the “very sensitive source” the FBI wanted to protect. Page claimed that, as of August 2016, she did not know who Steele was. “I don’t know that he’s an FBI source. I don’t know what he does. I have never heard of him in all my life,” Page testified. She continued: “When the FBI first receives the reports that are known as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele’s handler in September of 2016, at that time, we do not know who—we don’t know why these reports are generated. We don’t know for what purpose.”

    So, if the FBI didn’t know who Steele was in August 2016, he couldn’t have been “a very sensitive source,” for that reason as well.

    Page’s testimony creates yet a bigger problem: Her statement contradicts Department of Justice lawyer Bruce Ohr’s testimony to the House committee. Ohr testified that in early August, after meeting with Steele on July 30, 2016, he met with Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page and informed them of Steele’s intel.

    Yet Page claims they did not learn of Steele’s reports until Steele’s handler provided them in September of 2016. Even then, Page claims she did not know why the reports were generated, again contradicting Ohr’s assertion that when he provided information from Steele to the FBI he made clear “These guys were hired by somebody relating to—who’s related to the Clinton campaign.”

    Might there have been a “very sensitive source” involved, as Strzok maintained? Maybe. But surely it wasn’t Stefan Halper either, because the FBI would never, ever leak details so descriptive of a “very sensitive source” that the general public could identify him from the New York Times and Washington Post’s reporting — right? Or if Strzok did mean Halper, that in itself is troubling, because it means the FBI was willing to burn a “very sensitive source” to damage Trump.

    Of course, we already know that Halper was in place and targeting Trump campaign-connected Carter Page before the official launch of Crossfire Hurricane—also disturbing to those concerned about the FBI’s targeting of a political opponent.

    If it was not Halper, was there “a very sensitive source” in place on August 15, 2016? If so, that would bring to two the number of sources in place at a time that Page testified was “literally the very beginning” of the evidence when there was “a paucity of evidence.” Yet, with very little evidence, the FBI had sources spying on the Trump campaign. Who those sources were remains to be seen, as does the question of how Page and Ohr’s testimony can be reconciled.”


  8. Constitution?

    Pfffttttt…. this is NY.

    This guy is guilty of several crimes, as has been proven (all years before Trump), but then they have to go too far.


    “This month, the greatest off Broadway production should be titled “The Prosecutors,” starring Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and New York Attorney General Letitia James. As in another dramatic comedy, “The Producers,” the state case against former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort seems designed to fail, leaving its prosecutors with the convenient windfall of public support and none of the burden.

    The New York state charges that Vance filed against Manafort appear to run afoul of state and federal protections against double jeopardy, or being prosecuted twice for the same underlying conduct. The timing of the charges alone seemed right out of the playbook of “The Producers” character Max Bialystock, the corrupt Broadway figure who insisted that in New York the rule is “if you got it, flaunt it, flaunt it.” Accordingly, Vance waited just minutes after the Manafort sentencing to hit him with state charges, guaranteeing the maximum exposure and credit for his effort.

    The problem is that the case appears not only constitutionally flawed but ethically challenged, coming right out of the Max Bialystock School of Prosecution. I have long been one of the longest and loudest critics of Manafort. He is a corrupt and despicable person who deserves the two sentences that could keep him in jail for the rest of his life. However, it is not his crimes but his association with President Trump that has driven the manic effort to charge him in New York. In this current age of rage over Trump, Manafort is a readily available surrogate for selective prosecution.

    For more than a year, leading New York state prosecutors have openly pledged to get Manafort on some undefined crime to prevent Trump from releasing him from jail on a presidential pardon. They promised to find crimes that could be alleged in the state system, which would not at all be impacted by a presidential pardon. To do that, they only had to strip all citizens of certain rights. Former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman pushed the legislature to rescind a core protection against double jeopardy to allow him to charge Manafort on the same criminal conduct that he would later be sentenced for in federal court.

    New York is one of those states with its own protections against such abusive and duplicative charges. When Schneiderman was forced out of office for alleged sexual assault, his cause was picked up by his successor, Barbara Underwood, who has deemed the constitutional protection a loophole that would “thwart the cause of justice rather than advance it.” You heard that right, a constitutional protection would “thwart justice” because it could be used by an unpopular individual such as Manafort.

    These calls were then picked up by Vance and James, who promised to get Manafort at any cost. James actually campaigned for and was elected to the attorney general post in part on her effort to reduce constitutional protections for everyone in order to get one man. Now Vance has fulfilled his pledge and charged Manafort in New York. It is a striking contrast here that Scheiderman was allowed to walk on sexual assault charges because prosecutors determined that some punching and slapping without any consent is allowed for “sexual gratification.” Yet, Manafort was charged on essentially the same alleged fraudulent conduct as in his federal case.

    When I read the complaint against Manafort, I was struck not only by the overlap but the overkill. I had never seen the Manhattan district attorney bring such a case, but I could be mistaken. After all, Vance proclaimed he had a sacred duty to protect the “integrity of our residential mortgage market.” That was news in itself. The core allegation was that Manafort lied about a condo being used as a home by his family, as opposed to a rental property. If that type of misrepresentation were truly prosecuted with vigor, New York would be a ghost town. In the land of rent controlled apartments, fraudulent practices are the norm. Indeed, Aaron Carr of the Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit housing watchdog group, declared recently that in New York “rent fraud is like finding rain in a rain storm.”


  9. Coming soon to a country near you…..


    “British Journalist Investigated By Police For … Misgendering Child Of Trans Activist”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.