President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[ShutUpLutz!]

Originally Posted by charliels531

Typical of Trump, he paid off women with whom he had consensual sex, and has refused to pay off the women he assaulted.

Honestly, that had never occurred to me.

Kudos to you.

[Devius]

US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is leaving his post at the end of the year, President Donald Trump says, in the latest high profile departure from his administration.

In a tweet, President Trump thanked Mr Zinke for his service, saying he had "achieved much during his tenure".

He said he would appoint a new interior secretary next week.

Mr Zinke, an ex-Navy Seal and a former Montana congressman, has been embroiled in allegations of ethics violations.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46580094


Video shows Trump's next chief of staff calling him 'terrible human being'

One of Mick Mulvaney’s first tasks as acting chief of staff to Donald Trump will perhaps be explaining why he previously publicly called his boss “a terrible human being”.

Video has emerged of Mulvaney, previously a Republican congressman, admitting his disdain for Trump shortly before the presidential election in November 2016.

“Yes, I’m supporting Donald Trump; I’m doing so as enthusiastically as I can do. In fact, I think he’s a terrible human being,” Mulvaney said. Referencing Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton, Mulvaney added: “But the choice on the other side is just as bad.”

Details:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...terrible-human


A federal judge in the US state of Texas has ruled that a key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional.

Twenty states argued the whole law was invalidated by a change in tax rules last year which eliminated a penalty for not having health insurance.

President Donald Trump said the ruling was great news for America.

The law's provisions will, however, remain in place until an appeal is heard at the US Supreme Court.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46577152

[frank07]

[charliels531]

[Meini Again]

The 'Pay-Off'.... gone from

Q: Did you know about Paying Daniels ?
T: NO

Recorded on Camera.... AF1

More explanations on Trump's changing story:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tormy-daniels/


Till now it was a situation of an 'anti-exploitation' exercise according to Rudi.,,,, his Lawyer..... speaking from a Presentaion abroad

It’s not the first time that Giuliani has attempted to downplay Trump’s alleged misdoings by comparing them to more serious crimes. In a November discussion about Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, he told HuffPost’s S.V. Date that “we’re talking about white-collar crime. Nobody’s dying, nobody’s being abused, nobody’s being sexually assaulted.”

- ADVERTISEMENT -

As the Trump camp’s defense has shifted, Trump’s involvement in the deal has become increasingly clear. CNN in July released a tape of Trump and Cohen purportedly discussing the McDougal payment. Then, multiple media outlets this week reported that Trump was in the room when Cohen was arranging the payment with National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Pecker, a close friend of the president’s, bought the rights to McDougal’s story in an apparent “catch and kill” effort.

Pecker and his owner AMI, have now flipped and are co-operating with the DOJ

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Devius

A federal judge in the US state of Texas has ruled that a key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46577152

“There’s really no American that’s not affected by this law,” said Yale law professor Abbe Gluck, who filed an amicus brief with other lawyers in the Texas case.

The judge’s ruling, she said, flouts settled legal doctrine and places key acts of Congress in reverse order.

By ignoring that Congress specifically declined to strike down the ACA in 2017 when it chose to alter only one portion of the bill, she said, the judge decreed that the 2010 Congress, which first passed the law, has more authority than the same legislative body in 2017.

“It’s absolutely ludicrous to hold that we do not know whether the 2017 Congress would have wanted the rest of the ACA to exist without an enforceable mandate, because the 2017 Congress did exactly that when it zeroed out the mandate and left the rest of the ACA standing,” Gluck said. “He effectively repealed the entire Affordable Care Act when the 2017 Congress decided not to do so.”

And as quoted in a Reuters report on this little bit of judicial activism from a bizzaro judge in Texas.

Timothy Jost, a health law expert and emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Virginia, said it was “silly” and “irresponsible” for O’Connor to find that the individual mandate could not be separated from the rest of the ACA. He said judges who find that portions of laws are invalid are required “to do as little damage as possible” to the rest of the law, and O’Connor had ignored that principle.

Jost noted that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear any appeal in the case, is considered the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. But, “O’Connor is so far off the reservation here that virtually any (appeals) panel will reverse him,” Jost said.

Jost noted that in the 2012 case in which the Supreme Court upheld the ACA, a lower appeals court had found the individual mandate unlawful, but ruled it could be severed from the rest of the law. That ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “is at least as persuasive and probably more persuasive than a decision by a single judge in Wichita Falls, Texas,” Jost said.

He said the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative wing has been skeptical in the past of striking down entire laws because of a single problematic provision, and at least a bare majority of five justices would likely agree that O’Connor was wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1OE0OQ

I predict that the repeated efforts by radical Republicans to flout the will of the majority, indulge in political dirty tricks and chicanery, and generally behave as poor sports and irresponsible political actors is about to rebound on them disastrously. We endured the phenomenon in California for decades until adopting neutral, non-partisan redistricting and now have the current voting landscape:

California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. The share of registered voters who are Democrats (44.4%) is up slightly from 2014 (43.4%), while the share of Republicans (25.1%) has declined since 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. Our surveys indicate that 47% of those we consider most likely to vote are Democrats, 28% are Republicans, and 21% are independents.

- Public Policy Institute of California

The California mix won't last of course. Fiscally irresponsible Democratic liberals will screw it up and most of us are closer to the center. However, California's Republican party seems determined to remain in the wilderness by championing policies that most California voters vehemently oppose, for example outlawing abortion and the current brutal treatment of asylum seekers and law abiding long-term residents with minor U.S. citizen children.

[charliels531]

The decision is indeed far too much judicial activism to stand. There is a general judicial policy that prevents courts from striking down acts of legislative bodies if one part is unconstitutional if the unconstitutional part can be separated from the rest of the act.

This decision, for example, would strike down the pre-existing conditions portion, as well as the requirement that restaurants list calorie counts.

[ShutUpLutz!]

Originally Posted by charliels531

The decision is indeed far too much judicial activism to stand. There is a general judicial policy that prevents courts from striking down acts of legislative bodies if one part is unconstitutional if the unconstitutional part can be separated from the rest of the act.

This decision, for example, would strike down the pre-existing conditions portion, as well as the requirement that restaurants list calorie counts.

Ahh, but that fits in with Trump's endless shrieking about getting rid of all the regulations.

But there's the thing.

Trump and the Republicans want to get rid of/replace Obamacare, fine.

Okay, not really fine, but you know what I mean.

But if you're bleating that you're going to replace it with 'something that is so great, it's the best, the greatest health insurance you won't believe it," then why hasn't there been ANY evidence of ANYONE in the Trump admin or Republicans actually putting together even proposals for a replacement?

Oh wait, because they are lying filth.

[ball7]

President Donald Trump is working on extraditing exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen, a longtime target of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country's foreign minister claimed on Sunday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKBN1OF0BM

There comes a time when you begin to believe the Turkish officials more than the American President.

[BustyWomenLovr]

Originally Posted by ball7

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKBN1OF0BM

There comes a time when you begin to believe the Turkish officials more than the American President.

At this point, if he stood at a podium and said the sky was blue and grass was green, I'd run outside to look with my own eyes.