And now the loser is blaming Mark Sanford and his supporters rather than herself or Trump. Good riddance.

We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

Uh oh... I wonder who Trump is going to put up for the job.

wow he sure moved quick

And twitter is going crazy over how Jim Acosta assaulted the aide who tried to take the mic from him. When to me all it looked like was he put his arm in to block her from doing so.

I think he'll be fine with Whitaker keeping it for a good long time:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/opini...ion/index.html

Fox reporting Rosenstein on his way to the White House

This is a mature way to handle losing:

This whole thing looks like a very calculated play on his part. The timing of it just after the election, a lame duck control of the house, possible indictment of Jr. The strategist in me says that a new acting attorney general is going to assume control over the investigation and basically freeze the FBI out of it and try and force Mueller on an island of public opinion. He won't shut the investigation down, but he will force it to limp along in the public, then shoot it when it's lost its relevance and power. I don't know if any of that is a possibility, but it smells like enough of an "I'm not shutting it down" kind of thing, while still effectively putting a homer in charge of it, who will fill the president in on the entire thing.

But that's much harder to do when the Dem Judiciary Committee takes power in January and will surely fire everything up.

Fun drinking game: "Banana republic or the United States of America ?"

The new acting AG is on record as saying one of the worst Supreme Court decisions was Marbury v. Madison.

I think (hope) Mueller was ready for this-I mean Trump has made no bones about his dislike of the investigation. He's probably got sealed indictments ready to go. And its being reported now that Rosenstein no longer in charge of the Mueller investigation.

Rod Rosenstein no longer overseeing Russia probe


Nailed that and fast.

Rosenstein has been expected to be fired for months now. A source I know heard him say that directly in January. So I've no doubt Mueller was prepared for this to happen.

I don't know how you can read them and not feel that it was set up in part to protect wealthy landowners (or the status quo). Federalist number 10 is entirely devoted to this. The argument is clear that the wealthy landowners must be protected from the commoners.

Elsewhere, Madison specifically says what the Senates purpose is. To protect the wealthy landholders from the people.



There are many, many more of his and others writings that talk about this.

Now you may agree with his stance, just as many others do. But I don't know how you could think this was anything other than a protection of economic interests of a certain class. These were primarily wealthy individuals who wanted to protect themselves while giving the facade of being a free country.

You'll also notice in all these writings about the dangers of minority rule, that it almost exclusively focuses on economics. There is no fear of racial or ethnic minorities being oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. There is no talk of a dominant religion such as the Baptists using their majority to impose adultery laws for instance on the minority.

It's almost if the "tyranny of the majority" was only a concern when it came to certain landholders.

If he's trying to obstruct (which he likely is), he's a bit late. The investigation is split between other investigative bodies that include states.

The House can also just fund Mueller for their own investigation. Have them turn over all the documents of the investigation. Even hold televised hearings where Mueller can describe what evidence he had before he was shut down.

This feels more like a temper tantrum after a rough day at the polls. Maybe the realization that indictments are on the way for some people and a House with subpoena power.

Move On et al are organizing protests tomorrow in response to the Sessions firing. I'd protest the hell out of a Mueller firing, but I've got no interest in appearing to defend Jeff Sessions.

I’m pretty sure they changed their website recently that a Sessions firing wasn’t a protest level event. Which I thought was funny because it was last time there was rumors about Sessions getting fired.

Let me know if I am wrong.

THE ELECTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED

Now Wisconsin's State Assembly Leader Robin Vos is talking about taking away some of the governor's powers in a lame duck session before Tony Evers takes over for Scott Walker.

What a bunch of slimy fucking losers.

I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH. Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 8, 2018

Sarah Sanders on Twitter: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."


And here is the start of a thread of lies

wow good luck on that war against the free press Sarah.

When I was talking about gerrymandering earlier, here is the district I used to live in.

An analysis as to what the mid-terms (may) mean for healthcare reform.

Midterms put the brakes on Republicans’ health-care agenda — so what’s next? - MarketWatch

He literally applauded that Congressman who bodyslammed a reporter a couple weeks ago.

He would have applauded if that intern had bodyslammed Acosta.

It's pretty obvious on the video, unless someone wants to parse the difference between "putting hands on" and "chopping with the arm.

CNN should not have WH credentials, plain & simple. Should have been pulled ages ago frankly.

Ya, the popular retiring Idaho Republican governor endorsed the medicaid expansion and it was approved easily. This is a state that shot down a small vehicle registration fee increase and a levy for community college funding. "Medicaid" is not a dirty word I guess.

The difference in those 2 things is that one involves me in your space and the other is you in mine.

lol

I never expected you to turn snowflake. Enjoy your safe space!

I said it years ago and only believe it more now, the whole press corps should boycott the WH events and just report stories. Any time they have a briefing it's for propaganda purposes, so deny them the oxygen. They'll cave pretty quickly if they aren't getting airtime.

New AG was part of one of those invention patent scam companies.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

This is not what I would have thought but surveys don't lie ...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/...ult%2520Rifles

I still don't understand why any legitimate news organization would want to cover a WH press briefing. You might as well just listen to Alex Jones.

Guy spent the day moving further toward obstructing a federal investigation by setting up a kangaroo justice system and people are more concerned about whether Jim Acosta has a press pass.

Amy Klobuchar a legitimate Democratic presidential hopeful? She seems to be a better option than Elizabeth Qarren vs Trump.

She's the kind of person I hope, but don't expect, Democrats to nominate. Just a solid, relatively 'boring' politician who won't a lot of negatives to attack, relatively speaking.

You can't do that, it just feeds into the narrative of being an "enemy".

Nah, some of us are looking at the clinic Brian Kemp is putting on in the GA governor race.

The key words here are 'in part'. I don't argue that this wasn't a factor. My point is that it was just that - a factor, among many given and among many logical ones as well, both for and against. Your previous posts said it was the reason, not a reason, and twice later in the most recent post I'm quoting here you reverted to that as well, such as:


How about because, as I already referenced, the framer you specifically chose(Madison) gave many other reasons for the Senate in the source you specifically chose (the Federalist Papers). That'd seem as compelling a reason as anything could be, would it not?


As noted before, populations indicate there were actually somewhat more small states in the North than in the South.



It's worth noting that there are many well-known writings by other framers making this exact same argument, among them Hamilton.


There are the four arguments I referenced. You seem to be laboring under the idea that I made them up or something. How could I think it was anything other than a protection of economics? Because Madison and others were constantly saying it was, such as above. I don't in any way deny that motivation played into it as well - but if one is going to characterize it generally that way you have to believe they are just lying here - and if you're going to do that, they have no value as a source and we might as well just pick a reason out of a hat and go with that.

It's not about, for me at least, arguing in favor of the idea of a Senate though I'm very willing to do that and I think the concept of a single-chamber legislature, or two of them elected the same way which is no better, is excessively bad. My argument is simply that the reasons for it were varied and I completely stand by the idea that your assessment was not accurate, inasmuch as you claimed the minority of the opulent quote summed it up and have continued to basically do so. It does not at all, given the above arguments that were put forward.

The older I get the more I want "medicare for all". I'm not sure what's the best plan/option but Option #1 is Bernie's plan with est. $32T and that is too much (assuming that is correct). No estimates for the costs for Options #2 & #3 in the article but assumption is it will be lower.

Either way, it can't just be give access/provide coverage for "all". It really needs to address the cost side also and people's expectations.

Best we can hope for is the Dems lay the groundwork now and then it really begins in 2020 with some sort of grand compromise that moves the dial towards "all" with somewhat reasonable costs and tax hike.

Democrats Have Won The House. What Will They Do About Medicare For All?

At this point, I can only assume Jon is just trolling the board, since he's repeatedly pointed out he's the only true conservative around here, to make sure his comments embody the absolute extremes of what a Trump supporter sounds like in an effort to roil this board.

I mean, look, "free press" does not mean you get to ask questions until you are satisfied with the answers, and he should have handed over the mic, but the idea that he put his hands on her is ridiculous, as was Trump's non-response to the question that it's fake news. He pulled the mic away as she attempted to take it from him.

The unfortunate part of getting to ask Trump questions is that you have to put up with his answers. Their job is to ask the questions, but they aren't going to get real answers to tough questions. It's just giving him more ammo to shout down his detractors. This was the perfect example of turning the press's tough questions into an attack on Trump.

trump is the most immature president I've ever seen. He's the great whiner in chief. He will not answer questions if he doesn't like it. None of the questions are unfair, they are philosophical questions, based on his own words, that he has no conceptual understanding of and only hears challenges to his authority that he responds to with anger and name calling.

fixed

Less so, I think, than participating in the public flogging sessions these briefings have become.

Hey,

what happened to that immigrant caravan that was going to kill us all? Funny how coverage just stopped the day after the election.

He wants the questions to stop and to face no scrutiny. Stop attending the press conferences and that's what he gets.