Attorney General Jeff Sessions Resigns from Trump White House

           

https://disqus.com/home/d...mp_white_house/

An example: The AG is investigating a former Secretary of State. She talks to that subject husband... on the tarmac... in her plane. Should she recuse herself?
Another example: There is an investigation about Russia's interference with an American election. It bleeds into a presidential campaign. The new AG is part of that campaign, but maintains no Russian connections. He was under oath at the time. Then, he remembers that not only did HE have meetings with the Russians but he knew of meetings between Papadopoulos and the Russians, had no memory of Page's conversation with him about the Russians and so on. Even innocent as hell, it looked bad. It was the right thing to recuse himself and hand over the investigation to his second in command. Then, you can debate whether the second did the right thing with a special prosecutor, but Sessions behavior was much more professional than the first example.


This is the start. The election's over. RINOs lost the House and good campaigning increased the Senate Republican majority.

Obama started with both Houses, like Trump. Obama lost the House in 2010 with Obamacare. Obamacare started life in the 111th CONGRESS, 1st Session as H. R. 3590, introduced by Charlie Rangel (D-NY15) as "thettt Service Members Home Ownership Tax Actttt of 2009." On Oct 8, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. it passed with a vote of 416/0.

Since all bills introducing a tax must be initially submitted in the House, Harry Reid allowed a Senate Amendment that changed H. R. 3590 from "thettt Service Members Home Ownership Tax Actttt of 2009" via an Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)

Viz:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’.

The amended bill (now Obamacare) passed the Senate on December 24, 2009 at 07:05 AM with a vote of 60/39, with no Republicans voting for it. It then wnt back to the House.

In the House on Mar 21, 2010 at 10:49 p.m. it passed as amended with a vote of 219/212, again with no Republican votes.

That sequence lost the House for Obama for the next 6 years, but RINOs supported his agenda pretty much, and when Reid actually allowed Republican House-passed legislation to be voted on, the Senate Majority voted them down. Not a lot got done until the Republicans won the Senate in 2015. They paid back Reid's political delays by not considering Obama's 3rd SCOTUS pick.

Now Trump has lost the House and will need to control Pelosi, with Mitch McConnell's help or, in a perfect world, with another Senate Majority Leader who's more attuned to MAGA.

But Trump has an increased majority of at least 54 in the Senate come January. Bader Ginsberg will retire before 2020 or become obviously mentally incompetent and resign. At that point, Trump will get his third Strict Constructionist Justice appointed by 51 votes or more. The RINOs are mostly gone. Inferior Court judge appointments will fill the docket for the Senate from 2019-2021.

Losing the House likely lost him the wall, but keeping and enlarging the Senate majority will adjust the courts in a much more "good for America" way. The left can say goodbye to rulings against conservative principles.

And Democrat threats of Impeachment or Trump and Kavanaugh are political Imagem rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://uploads.disquscdn.c" target="_blank">https://uploads.disquscdn.c" alt="Imagem" height="42%" width="42%">... because Impeachment doesn't accomplish anything without Conviction in the Senate. And that takes 67 votes. As it stands, the Democrats (and Independents) will have 46 and need 21 RINOs to pull off removal from Office.

I'd say that the Republicans did good.


the problem with such a claim is the agency that holds the lease on the hotel has already looked at those claims and said there was no problem. additionally you would need evidence that shows that his foreign guests are paying more than the rate charged to domestic guests. for the same space. otherwise it is just a business conducting business as usual .

the other problem is if the hotel starts refusing service for whatever reason it will subject them to multiple fines and lawsuits . unless you have evidence that the foreign people staying at this hotel was forced to do so then there is no issue with them staying there as opposed to a different one.


for the most part people are opposed to impeachment except in cases where there is absolute positive proof of wrong doing. at best the things being presented thus far against this president are only wrong dependent on your political view point or if you ignore the exculpatory parts of it.

you are suggesting that the new AG be impeached before he is appointed or even named to the short list. which just illustrates how desperate democrats are to harm this president.

fortunately the second sessions resigned, control of the Mueller probe was removed from Rod rosenstien and was given to the interim AG. who will now decide how and if the case proceeds as well as deciding how the findings are reported.


i am being serious.
notice how even after all of the speculation Mueller is still in place and still investigating? even in his press conference today the president said he wanted the probe to be allowed to finish.

the president does not strike me as a stupid person , he knows full good and well that ending the investigation prematurely is bad for him. the only way he gets what he wants is the investigation to reveal he had nothing to do with the interference of the election.

there is however nothing stopping the interim AG or who ever he appoints to the position from ending the investigation on their own.