Just adding a link to the story to this. Curious to see RL's response: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/0...ulation-after-offering-destroy-state-senator/
The guy got this whole thing started with "asset forfeiture" as his main concern, that's telling to the mind of modern law enforcement.
Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, called Trump's comments about the judiciary "demoralizing" and "disheartening" http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/gorsuch-trump-tweets/
No, he wouldn't want to do that. When he does, it's about withdrawing the nomination. Wouldn't do that given him needing the conservative base, but never underestimate the power of thin-skinned-ness.
So now, despite his own people confirming what Neil Gorsuch said to Senator Blumenthal about Trump's attacks on the judicial as being disheartening and demoralizing, Trump is attacking Senator Blumenthal for "missrepresenting" what Gorusch said to him. btw, the Trumped up story about Blumenthal tems from a misstatement from Blumenthal where he said: Geez, with Trump's spokespeople "misspeaking" in the news, funny how Trump attacks Bumenthal over what is a much more likely slip of the tongue. But if I were a Democrat Senator talking with Gorsuch, I'd not only ask about Trump's attacks at the judiciary, but now also his thoughts on Trump attacking everyone via twitter.
Coincidental timing? GOP bill introduced the split up 9th Circuit to lessen "clout" of "liberal" court. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html
I think the Gorsuch comment helps his nomination. It makes him look independent and principled that he's willing to defend the judiciary against the man who nominated him That buys some goodwill of people in more neutral territory and makes confirmation incrementally easier. I wonder if Blumenthal's disclosure was planned to do exactly that. Probably is something that needs to be done. But, wouldn't it mean that Trump nominates all the judges on the new 12th district court? That doesn't seem right.
I hope you are right .. but i am not as optimistic If Provokes a war . . .. . esp one that reaches our coasts the American people will have to make a choice . . .. be pro America in an unjust war .. or anti- war and have to stand against its own government Somehow. . No matter the war . . . . i cannot see Most Americans taking up arms against their own government Only those Anti-anyoneNotWhite Militia groups and they would probably be on the side of the government in this case Rocket River
True. If a president tries to consolidate power with a foreign scare, Americans can call BS if they're smart enough. If a president instead actually brings trouble home, Americans may have no choice but to further empower the presidency.
Bringing trouble home is just an inevitability at this point. No possibility is too low for this administration. And we know people like Bannon understand the power they can grab after another attack on US soil.
He could be impeached, but if he dissolves congress and assumes emergency powers for national security purposes. The man is already undermining the press and the courts and the election system. He is a threat to take absolute power. I don't think that's his plan, but I do think that is the inevitable path he is heading down.
Trump's blustering "I'll see you in court" inspired some witty responses: Stephen Colbert ✔@StephenAtHome SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU'RE STUPID! 8:25 PM - 9 Feb 2017 http://distractify.com/humor/2017/02/10/see-you-in-court
Trump's comments certainly make clear what Trump expects out of the judges he appointed, including Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
