The Supreme Court allows Donald Trump to enforce his travel ban
Today the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to enforce his travel ban, here is more:
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.
This is not a final ruling on the travel ban: Challenges to the policy are winding through the federal courts, and the justices themselves ultimately are expected to rule on its legality.
But the action indicates that the high court might eventually approve the latest version of the ban, announced by President Donald Trump in September. Lower courts have continued to find problems with the policy.
This battle is not over but this is a victory for Donald Trump nevertheless: This basically lifts the injunction placed on the travel ban by the lower courts and allows Donald Trump to enforce the ban while the lawsuits are still being fought in the courts. But, as the block quote alludes to, this could be a preview of how the Supreme Court will rule once the ban makes it to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court had some of the same concerns as the lower courts it would seem to me they would have not allowed the injunction to be lifted so it seems likely the Supreme Court will eventually rule in Donald Trump’s favor. But still all bets are off, I still remember John Roberts basically rewriting the Obamacare mandate as a tax when it looked like the Supreme Court was going to strike it down so who knows how this will end.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Over the weekend we learned that a top aide to Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, in the Russia collusion scandal investigation was removed from the investigation a few months ago for some anti-Trump texts made between himself and his mistress. His impartiality was obviously not so impartial–he had an agenda. At that time we also found out that he played a role in the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation and this was now under review also.
He participated in the FBI’s fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
Today we learned from this story that not only was he involved in the interview with Hillary Clinton but that he is also responsible for changing the description of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey’s description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” the source said.
Mueller aide removed from Russia investigation for anti-Trump texts now under review for his role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation
Yesterday we learned that earlier this year Peter Strzok was removed from Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russia collusion investigation for some anti-Trump texts he made to a colleague. That one issue alone was enough to have him removed, obviously, because it shows that he had a bias in what is supposed to be a neutral investigation, but now we are learning that Peter Strzok himself is being “reviewed” (I would prefer the term “investigated”) for his role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Here is more:
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department’s Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok’s roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by “very early next year.”
He participated in the FBI’s fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.
And here is more:
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was “documentary evidence” that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok’s removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad “personnel” grounds.
But it gets even worse for Strzok, the FBI, and the Department of Injustice as possible contempt charges loom:
Responding to the revelations about Strzok’s texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations before year’s end.
“We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said in a statement.
So, he played a role in the events leading up to James Comey’s decision not to charge Hillary Clinton in the email scandal and he had an obvious anti-Trump bias while helping in Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign until his bias could no longer be ignored, and yet the Congress was told he was relieved of duty for personal reasons.
I guess if you count his personal political beliefs as “personal reasons” for letting him go this would make sense, at least to a liberal who only cares about bringing down Donald Trump, but this was not a personal reason in the legal sense of the investigation and now everybody realizes what was going on and hopefully the Congress will bring contempt charges forward.
This is quite the incestuous relationship within the swamp…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, December 3rd open thread: ‘A Long December’
Here is the open thread for Sunday, December 3rd. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
Last week we discussed 7 stories, did you miss any of them? If so there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. I understand that all of you are busy and cannot always find the time to check the blog for updates so why not subscribe to America’s Watchtower and receive email updates whenever I write a new post? That is the easiest way to follow the blog to ensure you never miss another post.
In addition to subscribing you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. But you will get more than that for I often post links to articles probably will not be writing about so it is a great way to keep up with what is happening.
The Twitter widget in the sidebar is fully interactive. This widget updates my tweets in real time and allows you to respond to or retweet my tweets right from the blog. It also allows you to tweet me right from America’s Watchtower.
It is hard to believe it is already December, this year as gone by so fast! So here is Counting Crows performing “A Long December” live in 2002.
frui diem
One thing that struck me yesterday as I was reading some of the stories about Michael Flynn’s decision to plead guilty to lying to the FBI was the fact that many of them tried to tie this to the 2016 campaign and the allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians. In the post I wrote yesterday this was also the case with the story I used as reference from Politico.
The most egregious example of this came from ABC when Brian Ross took to the air and reported that Donald Trump instructed Michael Flynn to contact the Russians during the 2016 campaign. A simple check of the date of the meeting in question would have quickly dispelled this error but Brian Ross could not even be bothered to check because this was an agenda driven report and today ABC announced he has been suspended without pay for four weeks.
Here is more:
ABC News has announced that Brian Ross would be suspended for four weeks without pay “effective immediately.”
“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience – these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday,” the network said in a statement on Saturday. “Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”
Ross came under considerable fire on Friday after he erroneously reported on live television that then-candidate Donald Trump had instructed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians. In a correction seven hours later, the channel admitted that it was “President-elect” Trump who had made the request of Flynn — a pretty significant difference.
ABC issued a correction on Twitter and also updated their original article.
Here is the Tweet:
As you can see by the correction there is a huge difference between what Brian Ross reported and what turns out to be the truth. And the liberals wonder why Republicans and conservatives do not trust the mainstream media. Of course people will remember the original reporting and will forget about the correction so for all intents and purposes this was Brian Ross’ “mission accomplished” moment.
At this point is should be remembered that this is not the first time Brian Ross has jumped to a conclusion without the facts in order to issue an agenda driven report: There was that time when Brian Ross concluded that the Colorado theater shooter was a Tea Party member simply because he found some random dude on Facebook with the same name.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
As you all know by now, Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty on one count of lying to the FBI about a meeting he had with a Russian ambassador in December. Here is more:
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty on Friday to one felony count of lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador last year, bringing the special counsel’s investigation into the 2016 election deeper into President Donald Trump’s inner circle.
Prosecutors said Flynn’s conversations about sanctions with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016 came after input from at least two other top members of Trump’s presidential transition team.
The one bright side to this story, if there is any, is that this occurred after the election and has nothing to do with the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to sway the election, even though you would not know this by listening to the mainstream media.
John McCain supports the Senate tax reform bill
There are still a few Republican holdouts who are waiting for a few concessions before they decide how they will vote on the Senate tax reform legislation but John McCain is no longer one of them. Here is more:
The GOP tax overhaul looks increasingly likely to win enough votes to pass in the Senate after Senator John McCain said he supports the bill.
“After careful thought and consideration, I have decided to support the Senate tax reform bill. I believe this legislation, though far from perfect, would enhance American competitiveness, boost the economy, and provide long overdue tax relief for middle class families,” McCain said in a statement Thursday.
This was a big “get” for the Republicans and the chances of this bill passing is looking more and more likely. However there are still amendments being added to the legislation and I do not trust John McCain. I would not be surprised to see the Senator from Arizona use one of the amendments to announce he now opposes the legislation and deliver another defeat to the President much like he did on the Obamacare repeal legislation.
There is talk the vote could be held as early as tonight or in the wee hours of the morning so we will know soon…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Donald Trump is desperate for the major legislative win by the end of the year which has eluded him so far in his Presidency. He hopes this victory will come in the form of tax reform but the outcome is in doubt with several Republicans still unwilling to announce their support of the legislation.
So yesterday he offered a bit of an olive branch hoping to win over a couple of Republicans and possibly one Democrat on tax reform and it comes in the form of reversing his position on the Alexander-Murray bill.
Back in October the President said he was going to end the Obamacare subsidies. The Alexander-Murray bill would extend the subsidies for two years and Donald Trump said he could not support the legislation because he considered it a bailout of the insurance companies, (I do not agree with this assessment because the costs will then be passed on to the consumers by the insurance companies), but yesterday he announced he would support the legislation.
Here is more:
President Donald Trump reportedly told Republican senators on Tuesday that he supports the Alexander-Murray bipartisan stabilization bill, which may help bolster support for the tax reform vote later this week.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) revealed that Trump told GOP senators, “I support the Alexander-Murray bill.”
Rounds added, “He actually made it very clear that he supported the Alexander-Murray bill. He sees it as a transition away from Obamacare.”
Trump’s approval of the Alexander-Murray bill could help gather reluctant senators’ support for the tax reform vote later this week. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) have yet to say whether they would vote for the tax reform legislation otherwise known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
I understand what Donald Trump is trying to do but I am highly skeptical that it will work. John McCain is not going to support anything Donald Trump tries to do because of his war hero remark during the campaign and the Democrats’ idea of negotiating is basically give us all we want or there is no deal. It is all or nothing with the party of no and the “Resist” movement. This will not be good enough for them, nothing will be…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Back in October we learned the FBI had evidence of collusion between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One but did nothing with it. This led to the House to open up investigations into the both the Uranium One deal and the Clinton Foundation.
Now we are learning, according to this story, that the Clinton Foundation vastly under-reported contributions made by a company which was lobbying for Russia’s nuclear company. Here is more:
The Clinton Foundation’s donor disclosure site vastly understated support that the Clinton Global Initiative received from APCO Worldwide, a global communications firm that lobbied on behalf of Russia’s state-owned nuclear company.
The site, created to detect conflicts of interest for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because of her family’s various charitable efforts, shows APCO gave between $25,000 and $50,000 over the last decade.
But according to interviews and internal documents reviewed by The Hill, APCO was much more generous and provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in pro-bono services and in-kind contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) between 2008 and 2016.
For instance, an internal CGI document prepared in fall 2011 lists APCO’s in-kind contribution at $275,000 for that year alone. And APCO’s annual report on its global charitable efforts boasted of a large jump in support for CGI in 2011.
“In 2011, APCO significantly increased its pro-bono support for CGI and, for the first time, our team managed the press around CGI’s America meeting, as well as its global Annual Meeting,” APCO stated in a report submitted to the United Nations Global Compact.
The increase in the contributions came as APCO was paid $3 million in 2010 and 2011 to work for Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear company. Rosatom paid APCO to lobby the State Department and other federal agencies on behalf of its Tenex subsidiary, which sought to increase its commercial uranium sales in the United States.
As you read in the block quote above the donation site in question here was set up to monitor Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State to ensure there were no conflicts of interest. The site showed that Hillary Clinton’s “charities” recieved between $25,000 and $50,000 over the course of a decade from APCO and yet we now know APCO donated $275,000 in 2011 alone and this was at the same time APCO was being paid to lobby for Russian uranium sales. That is quite a difference!
This timing must a coincidence and the discrepancy must have been an oversight due to sloppy bookkeeping, right?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
I don’t know how many people have been following this story with everything else that is going on but over the weekend the director of the Consumer Finanace Protection Board, Richard Cordray, stepped down and decided he had the right to name his own successor. He installed Leandra English as acting director but Donald Trump turned around and named Mick Mulvaney as acting director setting up a court battle.
It turns out this was not much of a court battle because today the court sided with the President and Mick Mulvaney was named the acting director. Here is more:
A U.S. District Court judge in Washington handed a big victory to President Donald Trump, ruling in favor of the administration in its bid to install White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Judge Timothy Kelly denied a request by Leandra English, who was named last week as acting director by outgoing CFPB chief Richard Cordray, for a temporary restraining order to block Mulvaney from taking the post.
Kelly said there was not a substantial likelihood that the case would succeed on its merits.
This was a no-brainer: the President, as the head of the Executive branch, has the power to name department heads, it cannot be left up to an unelected official to make these type of executive decisions and the quick action by the court shows how brazen this move was.
But when it comes to court decisions recently nothing is a no-brainer and I would not have been surprised if the judge ruled against Donald Trump in this case after some of the recent decisions. The CFPB is already unconstitutionally funded outside of the Congress through (I believe) the Federal Reserve so I still harbored a bit of concern about what the decision would be but the judge got this one right.
Even though the court decision cannot be challenged the left is not going to let this go and has vowed to fight on.
While this ruling cannot be challenged, Deepak Gupta, English’s lawyer, told reporters that he would have to consult with his client about the next steps. These would either involve seeking a preliminary injunction or requesting a ruling on a permanent injunction, either of which could be appealed to a higher court.
“This court is not the final stop,” Gupta said. “This judge does not have the final word on what happens in this controversy, and I think he understands that.” He praised the court for acting expeditiously but criticized the government for proposing a litigation schedule that would continue into next year.
The left is not going to let that pesky little Constitution stand in the way of getting what they want…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 