Every sleaze bag in the Republican party still alive has a place in Trump world

And here we again see.... ....John Yoo.

President Trump and top White House officials are privately considering a controversial strategy to act without legal authority to enact new federal policies — starting with immigration, administration officials tell Axios.

The White House thinking is being heavily influenced by John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the Bush administration's justification for waterboarding after 9/11.

Yoo detailed the theory in a National Review article, spotted atop Trump’s desk in the Oval Office, which argues that the Supreme Court's 5-4 DACA ruling last month "makes it easy for presidents to violate the law."

The president has brought up the article with key advisers.

[...]

Yoo writes that the ruling, and actions by President Obama, pave the way for Trump to implement policies that Congress won't.

Some could remain in force for years even if he loses re-election.

[...]

The first test could come imminently. Trump has said he is about to unveil a "very majo

[...]

The order could [...] include significant new restrictions on immigration that couldn't get through Congress but are favored by the president, Jared Kushner and hardline adviser Stephen Miller.r" immigration policy via executive order, which he says the Supreme Court gave him the power to do.

[...]

"Suppose President Donald Trump decided to create a nationwide right to carry guns openly," Yoo writes in his National Review op-ed. "He could declare that he would not enforce federal firearms laws, and that a new 'Trump permit' would free any holder of state and local gun-control restrictions."

"Even if Trump knew that his scheme lacked legal authority, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency. And, moreover, even if courts declared the permit illegal, his successor would have to keep enforcing the program for another year or two."

This is a somewhat strained reading of both procedural history and the law, according to Axios’ Sam Baker. The Supreme Court has never ruled either way on DACA’s legality.

But the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to decide the merits of anything Trump does before the election.

[...]

Trump told Chris Wallace in an interview for "Fox News Sunday" that in addition to replacing DACA with "something much better," he's also going to be unveiling a health care plan within two weeks "that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do."

  Axios

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

He doesn't even know what a bill is

You can't sign a bill as an executive order.  You can sign a bill - something that was passed by Congress - into law.  Or you can sign an executive order, which is something that shouldn't exist in a democratic republic where Congress is charaged with enacting the laws.  But you can't sign a bill as an executive order.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Should have seen this coming

The first two don't count.

I smell desperation.  It stinks.  He's hearing talk about how he got elected because of the Supreme Court nominations, so he figures he'll try that again.

UPDATE:

Another thought on the DACA setback for Trump

It strikes me that Trumpland's desire to get away with things and to prove themselves above the law may be at the heart of the  matter.  Why do things in an illegal manner that will be thrown out by the Supreme Court if there's a legal way to do it?  (Also, to show domination of the justices if they vote in Trump's favor regardless of legality.)

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

LOL

UPDATE:

Desperation sweat is the smelliest kind.

SCOTUS hands Trump another loss

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the administration failed to give an adequate justification for terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, as required by federal law.

“The dispute before the Court is not whether [Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

  The Hill

So, that sounds like they just need to go about it in another way.

The ruling keeps intact a program that is open to an estimated 1.3 million non-citizens who are eligible for DACA by virtue of having been brought to the U.S. as children, and who have maintained residency and meet the education or military service requirements and other criteria.

[...]

Appearing before the Supreme Court last fall, the Trump administration argued that its decision to rescind DACA is not reviewable by courts. A majority of justices rejected that argument Thursday, but several of the court’s reliably conservative members embraced the view in a dissenting opinion.

“The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong DHS’ initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent.

“In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches,” added Thomas, whose dissent was joined by fellow conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

Don't forget Kavanaugh.

Roberts said the administration did not follow procedures required by law, and did not properly weigh how ending the program would affect those who had come to rely on its protections against deportation, and the ability to work legally.

[...]

“We address only whether the [Department of Homeland Security] complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”

  WaPo

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Trump's butt boy writes an op-ed

******

******











...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Rise and whine*

What?  YOU ALWAYS win.  So you've been telling us.



Unsigned.

Don't worry.  You and Mitch have gerrymandered the Supreme Court.

*h/t pourmecoffee

UPDATE:  For the record:



Some day, maybe someone will go over his tweets and tell us which, if any, are NOT lies.

Immigration developments

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia found that the administration's termination of the program was "arbitrary and capricious," in line with a prior ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The bulk of the ruling rests on how the administration laid out its decision to rescind the DACA program.

Attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the decision to rescind DACA was an agency decision, and therefore did not have to made available for public comment and other procedures required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

While the court agreed that the decision didn’t have to undergo a public comment period, they said administration officials still violated the federal law by not fully explaining its decision to rescind DACA.

  The Hill

What about the merits?

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not plan to send migrant families to Florida after reports about a Trump administration proposal resulted in backlash from local and state officials this week.

[...]

It was reported earlier this week that the administration planned to send hundreds of migrant families to Broward and Palm Beach counties, two Democratic strongholds in Florida that are among the state's most populous areas.

  The Hill

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

A hostage situation

And Chuck's absolutely right.

He doesn't know where he is

How do you expect him to know where the border is?



Also...Steve King hasn't been rebuked enough, it seems.

Surprise, surprise

This is apparently the game plan Kushner, Pompeo and McConnell came up with in their meeting the other day.

All for political purposes, so McConnell could then pull this move.

Ditch Mitch.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Chuck Schumer is absolutely right in his response:



UPDATE 2/22:  Ditch Mitch Fund

Reminder that the Dems once voted to give him his wall

The art of the deal.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Now that we've seated Kavanaugh

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Meanwhile in the courts

Current recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will continue to receive the protections of the Obama-era program for now, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction preventing the Trump administration from rescinding DACA for current recipients.

Several district courts have reached the same conclusion, but Thursday’s decision is the first time a federal appeals court has weighed in on the Trump administration’s efforts to end the program.

The Justice Department already asked the Supreme Court to take up the question of whether the Trump administration could end the program. Thursday's ruling makes it more likely, though by no means certain, that the justices will do so.

  Buzzfeed

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

In the courts, a little good news

A U.S. District Court judge on Friday issued a ruling invalidating a Federal Election Commission regulation that has allowed donors to so-called dark-money groups to remain anonymous, the latest development in a years-long legal battle that could have major implications for campaign finance.

Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled the FEC's current regulation of such groups, including 501(c) 4 non-profits, fails to uphold the standard Congress intended when it required the disclosure of politically related spending.

  Politico

A D.C.-based federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to restart in full the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

[...]

The restart won’t be immediate. U.S. District Judge John Bates said Friday that the order would be delayed until Aug. 23 to allow the government to appeal, but he denied a Justice Department motion to reconsider his earlier decision, saying there were still deficiencies in the administration's rationale for rescinding DACA.
  Politico

In the months since President Donald Trump announced his candidacy for re-election, ten White House officials appear to have violated the Hatch Act by using their official government Twitter accounts for political activity, according to complaints filed today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). These officials include Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

[...]

The ten Trump Administration officials named in the complaints are: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Deputy Director of Communications Jessica Ditto, Executive Assistant to the President Madeleine Westerhout, Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah, Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley, Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters, Director of Media Affairs Helen Aguirre Ferré, Press Secretary for Vice President Mike Pence Alyssa Farah, and OMB Deputy Communications Director Jacob Wood.

[...]

The Hatch Act prohibits any executive branch employee from “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” OSC guidance on applying the Hatch Act prohibitions to social media, including Twitter, specifically advises that an employee may not “use a Facebook or Twitter account in his official capacity to engage in political activity” and requires that “any social media account created in a federal employee’s official capacity should be limited to official business and remain politically neutral.”

  CREW

The New Amerika

Yes, that is enough to boil the blood.  Also, the way we talk about immigrants held and deported: they're in detention centers - not ghettos or camps as in WWII era Germany, which are actually performing the same function of rounding up and detaining people not allowed to be free in-country.  The current (lied about) Trump addition of taking away their children is another chillingly similar move.

Once you start lying, it's hard to stop

He keeps rolling out this lie that the Democrats passed a law forcing ICE to separate children from parents.  There is no such law.






What?  And if he does that, they'd damn well better stand for the national anthem?  At least this seems like some sort of acknowledgment that he knows why the players are kneeling, and it's not about the anthem or the military.



No, he doesn't.  But I'd be happy for him to go ahead and do it.  An acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.  He keeps leaving that part off.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Tired of winning

The House leadership put the bill on the floor gambling it would pass despite unanimous Democratic opposition. They negotiated with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus up to the last minutes.

But their gamble failed. The vote was 213 to 198, with 30 Republicans joined 183 Democrats in defeating bill.

[...]

With moderate Republicans maneuvering to force a vote on legislation offering citizenship to some younger immigrants who arrived in the country as children, conservatives revolted. The farm bill became a bargaining chip as they lobbied leadership for a vote on a hard-line immigration bill.

[...]

McCarthy and Scalise will face a share of the blame for the failure, and their fortunes in the race to replace Ryan next year could suffer accordingly.

The farm bill itself became practically a sideshow, despite its importance to agriculture and the significant changes it would institute to food stamp programs.

  WaPo

Also, supporting our nation's great farmers:

China has purchased record amounts of soybeans from Russia in recent months amid trade tensions with the U.S., Bloomberg reported.

The world's biggest soybean importer, China has nearly tripled its imports from Russia, according to Bloomberg. Russian trade data show the country sold 850,000 metric tons of soybeans to China between July 2017 and mid-May this year.

The record sales represent more than twice the 340,000 tons sold during the previous growing period.

The move comes amid China's halt on purchases from the U.S., the world's largest producer of soybeans.

China has cancelled multiple U.S. shipments in recent weeks ahead of tariffs, including a 62,690-ton purchase on April 19, Bloomberg reported earlier this month.

  The Hill

Yes, we have a dumbshit hateful lying bastard for a president

Why should Mexico stop immigrants from South America at the US border?



I'm not sure if he means to use the "Nuclear Option" to change the rules of Congress or the nuclear option to kill immigrants on Mexico's "Northern Border".

Our stolen country.  (If you want to have a good cry, watch "100 Years" on Netflix.)



"No longer works."

If DACA is dead, it's because Trump killed it.  But maybe if he repeats this lie enough, all his base will believe it.  But why should he be putting the blame on Democrats?  His base surely approved of him killing it.