All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[The Darknight Detective]

I think it's also worth noting that the UN does not really dictate laws that control the internal governments of any of its member states. The 2,000,000 people currently locked up in the US are not there for violating any laws made by the UN.

The UN could decide cultural appropriation is illegal tomorrow if it wanted; the US government would ignore the hell of out of it.

Very true. The UN really can only shame other countries into doing something they want and nothing more.

[Len Ikari145]

Trump's Lawyer Drops an Ominous Threat about Firing the Special Counsel Investigating Russia. Which, if he did, would not only be pointless since the investigation would be carried out independently, but would only further incriminate the man alongside his recent tweets.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Trump's Lawyer Drops an Ominous Threat about Firing the Special Counsel Investigating Russia. Which, if he did, would not only be pointless since the investigation would be carried out independently, but would only further incriminate the man alongside his recent tweets.

Do it, Trump. DO IT. Let's see how far you're willing to go in the name of authorianism. "I think Vladimir Putin is a pretty cool guy. eh kills journalists and silences critiks and doesn't afraid of anything."

[JCAll]

Donald Trump Reports He’s Getting Rich as President

It has always been clear, Trump is doing this for the money.

I love, love, the new defense going around for this one. You're going to want to be sitting down when you hear this one.
"He's so rich already that this isn't enough money to be considered 'enriching himself'."
Fantastic! The old what's a few million bucks between friends defense. Never saw it coming. The internet is a scary place.

[Tami]

I love, love, the new defense going around for this one. You're going to want to be sitting down when you hear this one.
"He's so rich already that this isn't enough money to be considered 'enriching himself'."
Fantastic! The old what's a few million bucks between friends defense. Never saw it coming. The internet is a scary place.

George Clooney Reminds Everyone that Trump and Bannon Are Actual Hollywood Elitists

“Donald Trump has 22 acting credits,” Clooney said. “He collects $120,000 a year in his Screen Actors Guild pension fund. He is a Hollywood elitist.”

Clooney’s number is off in that assessment, but not by much. In 2015, one of Trump’s financial-disclosure forms revealed that he had $110,228 in a SAG pension fund. That sum, which seems surprisingly high, comes mostly courtesy of his hosting gigs on The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice. Trump has also made several cameo appearances in movies like Home Alone 2 and TV shows like The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Representatives for SAG-AFTRA, as well as for Trump, have not yet responded to Vanity Fair’s request for comment.

[Kevinroc]

McConnell wants to force health care vote by July 4th

https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-sche...444017826.html

Sources close to Mitch McConnell tell me the Majority Leader is dead serious about forcing a Senate vote on the Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill before the July 4 holiday.

Some senators want to delay the vote but McConnell views that as delaying the inevitable. There are no mysteries about what the toughest disagreements are over — Medicaid funding and insurance market regulations.

This week is crucial: the Senate won't vote without a CBO score, which means they need to finalize negotiations this week.

Behind-the-scenes: McConnell and Senate leaders have been at this for all of May and now first couple weeks of June, turning their weekly lunches into working sessions on various aspects of the healthcare legislation. They've whittled down the stack of items that people don't agree on. I've spoken to a number of people who know McConnell well who speculate that he'll force a vote regardless of whether he knows he has 50 votes.

They say he's desperate to move on to tax reform and can't have healthcare hanging around like a bad smell through the summer.

On the House side:

Following the White House's "Workforce Development Week," House GOP leadership will vote on two workforce bills. The big one: a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the "Perkins Act" for six years — providing more than $1 billion per year in federal support for career and technical education programs.

Wednesday's conference meeting is expected to be more policy-focused than usual. (They had to cancel Friday's meeting due to the fallout from last week's shooting.) A senior House aide tells me the Wednesday conference will focus on the budget caps and appropriations.

Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy will both address the National Association of Manufacturers. Ryan pushing tax reform and McCarthy on reg reform and workforce development.

[Tami]

Chris Wallace Interview of Trump Lawyer Jay Sekulow

WALLACE: A look outside the beltway at Erin Hills in Wisconsin, where the world's top golfers are competing in today's final round of the U.S. Open.

The investigation into possible links between Russia and Trump associates and whether the president has tried to shut down that probe took some dramatic new turns this week.

Joining me now is Jay Sekulow, a member of the president's legal team.

Jay, I want to start with the president's tweet Friday that I discussed with Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar. Here it is again: I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt.

Has the special counsel, Robert Mueller, formally notified the president that he is under investigation?

JAY SEKULOW, TRUMP LEGAL TEAM: The president has not been notified by anyone that he’s under investigation. That tweet, Chris, was in response to The Washington Post story that alleged that five unnamed sources, anonymous sources, leaked to The Washington Post that the president was, in fact, under investigation. So that tweet was in response to that. There’s been no notification of an investigation. Nothing’s changed since James Comey said the president was not a target or subject of investigation. Nothing’s changed.

WALLACE: Well, but you don't know that he isn't under investigation now, do you?

SEKULOW: Well, no one’s notified us that he is. So I -- I can't read people's minds, but I can tell you this, we have not been notified that there's an investigation to the president of the United States. So that -- nothing has changed in that regard since James Comey's testimony.

WALLACE: I -- I want to go after another part of this tweet. Why is he going after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. First of all, he seems to imply that Rosenstein is investigating, and that's not true. It Mueller. And, secondly, he made it clear in an interview with NBC that -- that he decided to fire Comey well before he ever met with Rod Rosenstein. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.

LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS: So (INAUDIBLE).

TRUMP: He made a recommendation. He’s highly respected. A very good guy. Avery smart guy. The Democrats like him. The Republicans like him. he made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: I want to ask you a direct question, does the president think that Rod Rosenstein has done anything wrong?

SEKULOW: The president has never said anything about Rod Rosenstein doing anything wrong. Here's what -- what is the legal situation here. There is a constitutional issue when you have this scenario. The president made a determination based on consult of advice. He decided ultimately. He’s the commander in chief. He gets to make that decision that James Comey had a go. That was coming, by the way, from groups right, left, and center over the last year. You -- you and I know that. So there had been concern about James Comey.

It was put forward in a memorandum -- that's what the president's referencing -- from the deputy attorney general and the attorney general requesting the removal of James Comey as the FBI director. And, ultimately, that's the president's determination.

So here's the constitutional threshold question, Chris. The president takes action based on numerous events, including recommendations from his attorney general and the deputy attorney general’s office. He takes the action that they also, by the way, recommended. And now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice because the special counsel under the special counsel relations reports still to the Department of Justice. Not an independent counsel. So he's being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. So that's the constitutional threshold question here. That’s why, as I said, no investigation --

WALLACE: Well, I -- what -- what -- what's the question (INAUDIBLE). I mean you -- you stated -- you stated some facts. First of all, you’ve now said that he is getting investigated after saying that you didn’t.

SEKULOW: No.

WALLACE: You -- you just, sir, that he’s being --

SEKULOW: No, he's not being investigated!

WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I said that the -- any -- let me be crystal clear so you -- you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any investigation of the president of the United States, period.

WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he's being investigated.

SEKULOW: No. The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works. If, in fact, it was correct that the president was being investigated, he would be investigating for taking action that an agency told him to take. So that is protected under the Constitution as his article one power. That's all I said. So I appreciate you trying to rephrase it, but I’m just being really direct with you, Chris. This is -- let me be --

WALLACE: No, I -- I -- sir, I didn't rephrase it. The tape will speak -- Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said he is being investigated. And it’s not that big --

SEKULOW: Chris, he is -- just -- no, Chris -- that’s (INAUDIBLE) unfair, Chris.

WALLACE: Wait a minute -- wait a minute. Jay, and it’s not -- Jay, it's not just being investigated for firing Comey. There's also the question of what he said to Comey when Comey was still the FBI director. So there's more than just the fact that he fired Comey.

SEKULOW: He -- Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president's tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That's what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be. So I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I've been crystal clear that the president is not and has not been under investigation. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

WALLACE: Well, you don't know that he's not under investigation again, sir. I mean you might --

SEKULOW: You know, I can't read the mind -- you’re right, Chris, I can’t read the minds of the special prosecutor.

WALLACE: Well, then, good, OK, so we’re in agreement, you don't know whether he’s under -- you don’t know whether he’s under investigation.

SEKULOW: But I have not been notified. No one has been notified that he is.

WALLACE: You don’t know whether he’s under investigation or not.

SEKULOW: Chris, I --

WALLACE: The question I'm asking you is, does he think that Rod Rosenstein -- it's a very simple question -- does he think that Rod Rosenstein did anything wrong?

SEKULOW: The president has not expressed any opinion about Rod Rosenstein.

WALLACE: Does he think that Robert Mueller has done anything wrong?

SEKULOW: First of all, he has not said anything about Robert Mueller. And, Chris, let me say something here. You’re asking me if I had a conversation, which I have not had, about Robert Mueller with the president of the United States on -- or anyone else for that matter. I can't discuss that and would that with you. Unlike James Comey, who leaks information to the press, I actually respect the attorney-client privilege. Apparently he did not.

WALLACE: Does the president believe -- well, you’re speaking for his legal team, so you’re out here to represent him and tell us what the president’s belief is, is that correct?

SEKULOW: No, I'm out here to tell you what the facts are and the legal issues are. I'm not to tell you what the beliefs are. I'm not the client’s conscience, I’m his lawyer.

WALLACE: I understand that and the -- and the client -- have you spoken the -- have you spoken to the president at all?

SEKULOW: Yes, but I'm not going to discuss those conversations with you. Those are privileged under the attorney-client privilege.

WALLACE: Well, I assume that if he asked you to say something, for instance, Marc Kasowitz said all kinds of things about -- after Comey's testimony. I assumed he was speaking for the president

SEKULOW: Marc Kasowitz made a general statement to the press after the testimony of James Comey. That's what that was about. This -- you’re asking me now questions about what people are thinking in their minds, which I don't read minds, and you’re asking me also what I may or may not have had a conversation with the president about and you understand this. I respect the attorney-client privilege, unlike James Comey.

WALLACE: Does --

SEKULOW: I want to be real clear on that too. I'm not going to give you conversations I've had with -- have or have not had with the president of the United States. So when I’ve had conversations with the president of the United States --

WALLACE: Well, I -- your --

SEKULOW: As his lawyer, it's privileged, period.

[Tami]

Part 2 of Interview

WALLACE: Does the president think that Rosenstein, because you talked about this constitutional theory that he took action, that's on the advice --

SEKULOW: Yes.

WALLACE: Although he says he didn't take it on the advice of Rosenstein, does he think that Rosenstein should recuse himself, and is healing the groundwork to fire Rosenstein and Mueller?

SEKULOW: I’ve had no conversations and I’ve heard nothing without that at all. Nothing. I think this -- Chris, this points out -- let me tell you one thing quickly about the constitutional theory, as you called it. It's actually called the Constitution. You know, the president has certain (INAUDIBLE) authority under the Constitution. It’s --

WALLACE: Well, you called it the constitutional theory, sir.

SEKULOW: Yes, it is a constitutional theory based on the Constitution.

WALLACE: I understand that.

SEKULOW: Not so-called. It's the constitutional theory. It’s part of the Constitution. The president has inherent authority.

Here's what you're trying to -- here’s what you’re trying to do, Chris, and I appreciate that you’re -- you’re trying to push back.

WALLACE: Well, now you’re reading minds again. Now you’re reading minds again.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I deal with fact and law. You were asking me to read people’s minds. That I don’t do.

WALLACE: Well, don't tell me what I'm trying to -- well, don’t tell me what I’m trying to do because you don't know what I'm trying to do. Actually, what I'm trying to get is a straight answer out of you. Let me ask you this --

SEKULOW: Yes, well -- sure.

WALLACE: As a matter of law, does the president think that he can be indicted under the Constitution?

SEKULOW: The president -- I haven't had that conversation with the president, but the president can't be indicted under the Constitution of the activity alleged in something like this. Of course not.

WALLACE: Why is that?

SEKULOW: Because there's not an investigation. And there’s -- there’s no (INAUDIBLE) against the president.

WALLACE: Well, you don't know whether there’s an investigation. Oh, boy, this is weird. You -- you don’t know that there’s -- whether there’s an investigation. You just told us that.

SEKULOW: Chris, you’re asking me to speculate -- so then what you’re asking me to do is to speculate on --

WALLACE: And it would matter. I'm asking you as a matter of law, not whether there's an investigation. Does the president think he can be indicted as president?

SEKULOW: For -- for --

WALLACE: That's a constitutional issue, isn’t it?

SEKULOW: For obstruction of justice? No, the Constitution’s --

WALLACE: No, for any of it.

SEKULOW: Now, Chris, you know, let's -- let’s be realistic here. You know what the -- the answer is. Can president be indicted for obstruction? You know what the position has been at the Department of Justice since the 1970s and again stated in 2000. That's not what president -- that’s now how you engage a president. There’s a political process if somebody did something wrong. You’re talking about -- you’re conflating a constitutional process, criminal law, with an issue of political consequence. So I am his lawyer. I’m not his political advisor.

WALLACE: Senator Dianne Feinstein, a top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded to the president's tweet this week with this statement. "The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn't apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired." Is she wrong, sir?

SEKULOW: Yes, she's wrong. First of all, Dianne Feinstein also called for an investigation of James Comey and Loretta Lynch for that whole episode regarding her engagement and calling it a, quote, "matter," not an "investigation." But with regard to this particular issue, I mean the tweet -- there's nothing illegal or inappropriate about the tweet. If the tweet came on the heels of a Washington Post story that had five anonymous sources and didn't even identify the agency from which those sources came from, and that's what he tweet in response to. It's that simple, period.

WALLACE: Final question, the president just -- just added John Dowd, a high-powered Washington lawyer, to his legal team. Should we expect him to hire other criminal lawyers? And, in a sense, is he preparing for a potential legal battle here?

SEKULOW: Look, I mean John Dowd is -- is a legal legend, you know that, in -- in -- in the -- in Washington, D.C., and the president is doing the appropriate thing by hiring lawyers necessary, if there was to be an investigation, if there were to be an investigation, you have the lawyers in place. We’ve got a great legal team led by Marc Kasowitz. We’ve got John Dowd on the team. This is a solid team. Contrary to some of the press reports, a deep team, if necessary.

WALLACE: Do you think -- I -- I -- I misspoke. I’m going to ask one more question. Because I'm not allowed to ask you what the president thinks, do you think that he should stop --

SEKULOW: Of course.

WALLACE: Do you think he should stop tweeting about this case?

SEKULOW: Look, I -- here's the thing on that. You know, people have been asking me that. Look, the president has changed the way in which engagement goes in -- I mean you've got great ratings, no doubt about it, Chris. But let's face it, the president speaks to 107 million people through his social media platforms. He revolutionized the election process by utilizing media in a different way. So I -- I think, look, the president knows the effectiveness of social media. He’s been very effective at it. Again, I’m his lawyer, I deal with the issues. Nothing that he's tweeted is causing me any issues whatsoever at this point. Nothing.

WALLACE: Jay, thank you. Thanks for coming in.

SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: It’s always -- it’s always interesting to talk to you. Please, come back, and we’ll --

SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: We’ll continue it and maybe this time we’ll get on this -- you know what, be here in studio and we can stay on the same wavelength.

SEKULOW: There we go.

WALLACE: All right, sir --

SEKULOW: Happy Father's Day.

WALLACE: Happy Father's Day to you too, sir.

[/QUOTE]

[ed2962]

Just watched the Alex Jones interview with Megan Kelly. It actually wasn't that bad. There were a couple times when she tried to hold his feet to the fire a little and he squirmed a bit. She brought up the Sandy Hook thing and he back peddled a little without actually admitting that he was full of crap. It was kinda funny when she something about how he reads these stories on the air and doesn't vet their accuracy and his reply was to make a crack about Hillary Clinton...I'm like no one said anything about Clinton, answer the question dude!

[Tami]

Just watched the Alex Jones interview with Megan Kelly. It actually wasn't that bad. There were a couple times when she tried to hold his feet to the fire a little and he squirmed a bit. She brought up the Sandy Hook thing and he back peddled a little without actually admitting that he was full of crap. It was kinda funny when she something about how he reads these stories on the air and doesn't vet their accuracy and his reply was to make a crack about Hillary Clinton...I'm like no one said anything about Clinton, answer the question dude!

I just didn't think that Kelly was the right person for this interview. I had no faith that she would be tough enough to ask the hard questions and push for an honest answer.

[ed2962]

I just didn't think that Kelly was the right person for this interview. I had no faith that she would be tough enough to ask the hard questions and push for an honest answer.

If he gave completely honest answers he'd have to admit that he's been doing shtick all this time and that half of what he says is made up BS. Such honesty would no doubt hurt his brand considering that many of his followers think they're getting actual news.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

If he gave completely honest answers he'd have to admit that he's been doing shtick all this time and that half of what he says is made up BS. Such honesty would no doubt hurt his brand considering that many of his followers think they're getting actual news.

Didn't Jones' lawyer already admit he was a "performance artist" during the child custody hearing with his ex-wife not too long ago? I mean, isn't it already common knowledge Jones is a 24-carat bullshitter?

[Kai "the spy"]

Chris Wallace Interview of Trump Lawyer Jay Sekulow

Part 2 of Interview

Thank you for that link and transcript.

Interesting interview, although Wallace was being amazingly obtuse. On purpose, I think, as he clearly was trying to create some kind of "gotcha" scenario. It was pretty obvious that Sekulow was referring to the investigation as hypothetical, why obsess about that he didn't expressely say that it was hypothetical, "But you just said he was under investigation".
And asking Sekulow about stuff that clearly falls under privilege, which Wallace must have known (if he isn't extremely unqualified) was most likely an attempt to create a "they have something to hide" idea.
But then, it appears this wasn't the first time those two spoke, so Sekulow presumably knew what he was getting himself into.

[Tendrin]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...cid=spartanntp

LONDON (AP) — Police say a vehicle struck pedestrians on a road in north London, leaving several casualties and one person has been arrested.
Metropolitan Police said officers were called to the scene on Seven Sisters Road at 12:20 a.m. Monday. The London Ambulance Service said it was responding to the incident.

Twitter is calling it an anti-Muslim crime, as apparently the victims were all Muslims leaving their mosque.

And in the States, a 17 year old girl was beaten to death with a baseball bat. She happens to've been Muslim but, of course, the police are indicating that they 'don't believe' it was a bias crime yet.

[Gray Lensman]

Didn't Jones' lawyer already admit he was a "performance artist" during the child custody hearing with his ex-wife not too long ago? I mean, isn't it already common knowledge Jones is a 24-carat bullshitter?

How many of his listeners have a serious case of cognitive dissonance?