Welcome Guest!
Teachers are welcome to read and post on Teachers.Net.
Login to access to these free features:
• Relaxed spam filters
• Post pics, links & comments
• Get notified of responses |
• Join teacher groups
• Apply to teacher jobs
• Post a resume |
Welcome Guest!
You must login to comment on posts.
Login to access to these free features:
• Relaxed spam filters
• Post links & upload pics
• Get notified of responses |
• Join teacher groups
• Apply to teacher jobs
• Post a resume |
Welcome Guest!
Your account must login to post.
Login to access to these free features:
• Relaxed spam filters
• Post, comment, & upload pics
• Get notified of responses |
• Join teacher groups
• Apply to teacher jobs
• Post a resume |
*Creature from the Black Lagoon*
You can't make this stuff up!
:::quote:::
Tea Party leader Mark Meckler on Thursday told The Hill he is “disgusted” by President Trump’s attacks on the conservative House Freedom Caucus over the GOP’s failed healthcare bill. “The man who promised to ‘Drain the Swamp’ now app...See More *Creature from the Black Lagoon*
You can't make this stuff up!
:::quote:::
Tea Party leader Mark Meckler on Thursday told The Hill he is “disgusted” by President Trump’s attacks on the conservative House Freedom Caucus over the GOP’s failed healthcare bill. “The man who promised to ‘Drain the Swamp’ now appears to be the ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon,’ ” said Meckler, who co-founded the Tea Party Patriots and whose new group, Citizens for Self Governance, has a database of 2 million conservative activists.
“He is now on the side of the swamp monsters,” Meckler added. Trump earlier Thursday issued a threat to the Freedom Caucus, warning them to “get on the team” or he would target them in the 2018 midterm elections.The GOP’s ObamaCare repeal plan was dramatically pulled from the House floor last week after Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) could not garner enough support among Republicans to pass the bill. Conservatives in the Freedom Caucus felt the bill did not go far enough, while some centrist Republicans opposed it as well.
Meckler and others on the right have warned that Trump risked losing his grassroots base by whipping support for the healthcare bill.
Many conservatives have so far directed their anger at Ryan and GOP leadership, who they say misled the president on the legislation.
But Trump’s attack on the Freedom Caucus could open up a rift with grassroots conservatives, who have defended the president against criticism over his support for the bill.
:::end quote:::
So, how will conservatives react to this?
From the National Review -- you know -- that 'ultra liberal' MSM source ;-)
:::snippets:::
…Trump’s tweets, by contrast, indicated that he’d discovered that Obama personally ordered surveillance of the incoming GOP president.
To call that claim “explosive” is an understatement. Indeed, Trump himself understood ...See More From the National Review -- you know -- that 'ultra liberal' MSM source ;-)
:::snippets:::
…Trump’s tweets, by contrast, indicated that he’d discovered that Obama personally ordered surveillance of the incoming GOP president.
To call that claim “explosive” is an understatement. Indeed, Trump himself understood the stakes and tweeted this:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
There was just one problem: Trump made the claim without providing any evidence to support it. Indeed, as FBI director James Comey pointed out, the president doesn’t even possess the legal authority to unilaterally order wiretaps on American citizens. Yet that didn’t stop the now-familiar partisan Republican scramble to find something, anything that could make Trump’s tweet look “truthy” or perhaps “truthish.”
:::snip::: ….Nunes acknowledged that he traveled to the White House before his March 22 press conference to review secret documents in the White House’s possession, then used the contents of those documents to “brief” the president and the press. In other words, the White House appeared to be using Nunes to brief itself. Rather than state its own case with its own evidence, it used Nunes to make it appear as if external investigation had at least partially validated Trump’s tweets.
Just at the time when the nation desperately needs adults to step forward who can give the public confidence that they not only understand the stakes of the Russia investigation, they also can be entrusted to conduct that investigation in good faith, Nunes unnecessarily poured gasoline on an already-raging fire. The American body politic is awash in conspiracy theories, mistrust, and wild claims of espionage and criminality. It needs leaders. It needs competence. It needs integrity.
Nunes isn’t Donald Trump’s lawyer. He’s not Trump’s spokesperson. It’s not his job to clean up Trump’s Twitter mess. The House Intelligence Committee faces the challenge of conducting an investigation that has at least some degree of bipartisan credibility. It’s not “success” for Nunes to produce a report that plays great on Fox News while his Democratic counterpart, Adam Schiff, writes a dissenting document for Rachel Maddow.
Are you unconvinced? Let’s indulge in the simplest exercise in political integrity. If the roles were reversed, what would you argue? If Adam Schiff was the chairman, Hillary Clinton was president, and Schiff was secretly meeting at the White House for solo briefings then presenting that same “evidence” to the press as if he’d discovered it, you’d want him to step down. And you’d be right.
:::::end::::
If you aren't keeping up with the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing....
by Anyone else?
Mar 29, 2017
All day long the main chatboard only goes to the retired teachers chatboad, but the retired chatboard isn't really there either. Anyone else getting that too?
:::quote::: Sally Yates’s tenure as the Trump administration’s acting attorney general was short-lived but eventful. A holdover from the Obama Justice Department, Yates didn’t make it two weeks before she was dismissed for refusing to defend Trump’s first travel ban. But before she departed, she warned White House counsel Donald McGahn tha...See More :::quote::: Sally Yates’s tenure as the Trump administration’s acting attorney general was short-lived but eventful. A holdover from the Obama Justice Department, Yates didn’t make it two weeks before she was dismissed for refusing to defend Trump’s first travel ban. But before she departed, she warned White House counsel Donald McGahn that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had misled his superiors about his preelection conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Weeks later, word of that warning leaked to the press — and Flynn promptly resigned.
Earlier this month, the House Intelligence Committee invited Yates to share her account of those developments, in an open hearing on the Putin government’s alleged interference in the 2016 election. Such testimony might conceivably touch on why the Trump administration waited weeks after Yates’s warning to oust Flynn.
Yates accepted the committee’s invitation.
Then, the Trump administration informed her that she would need to clear her testimony with the president, according to documents obtained by the Washington Post.
“The Department of Justice has advised that it believes there are further constraints on the testimony Ms. Yates may provide at the hearing,” Yates’s attorney David O’Neil wrote in a March 23 letter to Acting Assistant Attorney General Samuel Ramer. “Generally, we understand that the department takes the position that all information Ms. Yates received or actions she took in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General are client confidences that she may not disclose absent written consent of the department.”
O’Neil rejected this assessment as “overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials.”
“In particular, we believe that Ms. Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified facts about the department’s notification to the White House of concerns about the conduct of a senior official,” the letter continued. “Requiring Ms. Yates to refuse to provide such information is particularly untenable given that multiple senior administration officials have publicly described the same events.’’
Here’s how the Justice Department responded, according to the Post: "Scott Schools, another Justice Department official, replied in a letter the following day, saying the conversations with the White House “are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. The president owns those privileges. Therefore, to the extent Ms. Yates needs consent to disclose the details of those communications to [the intelligence panel], she needs to consult with the White House. She need not obtain separate consent from the department.’’
National security blogger Marcy Wheeler argues the Justice Department has no case here — unless Trump was involved in some shady business:
[T]he claim that Yates’ conversations with McGahn should be covered by Executive Privilege is a stretch. Just by way of precedent, in 2007, Jim Comey testified about his conversations with White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales while serving as Acting Attorney General.
That is, Yates’ conversation should not be covered by Executive Privilege unless Trump is claiming he was involved in hiding this information from Mike Pence.
Last Friday, Yates’s attorney reiterated her rejection of the DOJ’s analysis, and affirmed that she intended to testify at an open hearing scheduled for this Tuesday. By that point, Yates had also informed government officials that her testimony would probably contradict some statements made by the Trump administration.
That same day, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes canceled Yates’s hearing.
On Tuesday, the White House denied that it had taken “any action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying.” Ostensibly, the White House does not consider warning Yates that her testimony would be illegal — absent the president’s consent — as such an action.
Regardless, the Trump administration appears to have discouraged Yates from testifying. Yates insisted on doing so, anyway. And then Nunes canceled the hearing where she was scheduled to speak.
When Nunes made that decision last week, his committee’s ranking Democrat accused him of trying to “choke off public info.”
Earlier that week, James Comey had testified that the FBI was investigating potential ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The following night Nunes met with an anonymous source on White House grounds, where he reviewed intelligence reports that allegedly included the unmasked names of Trump transition officials who had been incidentally surveilled. Nunes went public with those findings the next day — before briefing his fellow committee members on the intelligence he’d discovered. He proceeded to personally brief the president — an ostensible subject of his House investigation — on the intelligence reports that he had seen.
These actions spurred calls for Nunes to recuse himself from the Russia investigation on Monday.
The fact that Nunes appears to have canceled a hearing — that the White House wished to prevent — has further undermined the GOP lawmaker’s standing with Democratic committee members.
Since the White House has no interest in blocking Yates’s testimony, surely the House Intelligence Committee will reschedule its hearing, posthaste.
:::end quote:
The documents referred to in this post are here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read- the-letters-detailing-how-sally-yates-was-blocked-from- testifying-on-russia/2390/
....that sums up 45’s first 65 days.
;-)
by EasTexSteve
Mar 27, 2017
Well, well, well! Funny how all the libs are trying to invent a Russian connection with the Trump administration, when the Obama white house was neck deep.
WikiLeaks released the following emails, which shows John Podesta's connection with Joule Unlimited Technologies — financed in part by a Russian firm — originally awarded Podesta 10...See MoreWell, well, well! Funny how all the libs are trying to invent a Russian connection with the Trump administration, when the Obama white house was neck deep.
WikiLeaks released the following emails, which shows John Podesta's connection with Joule Unlimited Technologies — financed in part by a Russian firm — originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined their board of directors. When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama’s special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock.
And, if that wasn't enough, he violated federal law by failing to disclose the stock transaction on federal government’s form 278, which requires financial disclosures for government officials — required Podesta to “report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children…of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000.” He mentions a divesting transaction with Joule of less than 1,000 dollars, and never declares any other ownership of their stock, when they awarded him 75,000 shares!
Hmmm... What did the Obama white house know, and when did they know it?
The emails:
wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4635
Podesta's form 278:
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1227013/john-podesta- white-house-financial-disclosure-form.pdf
next page »
« prev page
Teacher Chatboards
> So then all you're doing is getting two policies instead
> of one. Paying on one model for your PCP and another more
> traditional for your catastrophic care. You can bet a low
> cost catastrophic care policy is going to have very high
> deductibles. In that way
it
> would be...See More