Rattler

BTW, Eric Holder resigned as Obama's AG and he was under indictment. What has happened to that case since?

OK, here are the facts. The only thing he did wrong was tell Pence he did not discuss the Russian sanctions with the Russians and Pence went public with that info. That made Pence look bad and put Flynn's honesty into question. He only said the sanctions would be examined after Trump was elected. No further details on that issue were discussed. He resigned because he fugged up and made Pence look bad. that's all he did wrong. [Former Bill Clinton adviser turned conservative pundit Dick Morris explained, "The Obama appointees still inhabiting the bowels of the State and Justice Departments orchestrated the coup that brought down General Michael Flynn." They did so by leaking to the press the transcripts of Flynn's December 29 phone conversation with a Russian official about Barack Obama's sanctions. This was followed by dire warnings of Flynn's susceptibility to potential blackmail by the Russians. (As if Hillary Clinton wasn't the biggest blackmail risk in the history of the United States.) "The leaks of the content of an intercepted communication are felonies," said former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova. "All of the disclosures to the Washington Post are federal crimes." That's not to excuse any deception on Flynn's part, but clearly the bigger story is the leaks. Flynn worked for Obama, too, and he became one of the most vocal opponents of Obama's foolish nuclear deal with Iran. Think that didn't stick in Obama's craw? So, three weeks into his new job with Donald Trump, Flynn found himself on the receiving end of some carefully timed discrediting leaks — retaliatory hacks by Obama's hacks. The larger Democrat narrative here is the same as it's been for months: The Russians handed Trump the election, and he's now fulfilling his end of the bargain. Unfortunately, this narrative probably isn't entirely fabricated. There's more news to sort through about members of Trump's campaign coordinating with Moscow, and that bears watching. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Republican Devin Nunes, plans to investigate the leaks. "There does appear to be a well-orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," Nunes said. And this is just the beginning. "First it's Flynn," Nunes warned. "Next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus." Indeed, right now the military and intelligence ranks are full of Obama hacks who are leaking classified information. These are not hacks from the outside; these are insiders. A final point: Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather claimed "this Russia scandal" might end up being as "big as Watergate." Rather, who was forced to resign from CBS after he fabricated stories about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service record, had this to say about Flynn: "Watergate is the biggest political scandal of my lifetime, until maybe now. It was the closest we came to a debilitating constitutional crisis, until maybe now. ... We may look back and see, in the end, that it is at least as big as Watergate. It may become the measure by which all future scandals are judged. It has all the necessary ingredients, and that is chilling." Watergate is exactly what all Leftmedia want this to be — taking down a Republican president was euphoric for the Left, and they want to relive the glory days. Trump and all his people clearly better watch their backs.] Mark Alexander If these leftist loonies are successful in bringing Trump down, things are going to get real ugly, real fast.

Why don't you tell us what Flynn did wrong then? He probably resigned because he has a very low tolerance for stupidity in the media. He probably knew the witch hunt wouldn't stop too. The distraction required he fall on his sword. Disagree? Tell us what he did wrong then. BTW, he can probably do much more for the country now that he is no longer part of the administration. He can speak without fear now. I can't wait to hear what he says now.

Uptown now presumes to be a CPA with knowledge of tax returns. A man of many talents no doubt. Why he never insisted on seeing the sealed info in Obama's past is a mystery. He also seems to be ignorant of the fact that, although Trump is a "public figure", he still retains private citizen status as an American. Not all of his life is subject to public scrutiny, just the things that effect his ability to do the job, things Obama never let America see.

And where does what I said infer this? Are you somehow impaired? Reading comprehension is needed to continue with this debate.

"It is amazing to see the Democrats change their positions on secret information being leaked. Trump has been consistent in saying that leaking highly sensitive information was bad during the Obama administration. Yet, the motives for the leaks by Snowden and what is happening with Flynn and the Trump where leaks are done to hurt political opponents are quite different. To be honest, this shows first hand why the government shouldn't be getting all the information on private telephone calls. In Flynn's case, I can't even see what it is that he supposedly did wrong. According to Eli Lake, Russian ambassador raised sanctions to Flynn and Flynn responded that Trump would be taking office in 3 weeks and they would review the issue then. SO?! The issue with whether he was honest with Pence is a different question, and I can understand Flynn should have been clearer, saying that the Russians raised it but that he didn't discuss it with them." John R. Lott Jr.

This is who these people are. They should not be admired. They are enemies of the state. The most important thing is what info was leaked and what it meant. Hillary tried to distract the story by focusing on who leaked it, rather than what they leaked. http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/exposed-who-was-really-behind-secret-campaign-to-oust-flynn

I said that? Where? Quote it for me? Hey, everything refers to his past and his life. It doesn't apply to things we don't need to see. Do you want to see his Johnson too? Obama's entire past is a mystery, involving everything we need to know in order to judge whether he would be a good president. The things we don't know about him would go a long way to explaining why he did so many things that seem to indicate he hates America. If these things were know prior to his first election, we may have been able to avoid all of the destruction his presidency caused.

Because it's smarter for him not to. And doing so could very well give his competitors an unfair advantage in future business deals. How would knowing what's in his tax records benefit freedom and liberty in America? Do you post your tax records for public review every year? No? Why not? In America, we have the right to privacy in our private lives. That's what they said when they legalized abortion.

Fortunately, the Senate is not as anti-gun as the assembly. These bills will die there, like they all do. The gun lobby is very weak in NY State. It has achieved huge advances in much of the rest of this nation, and continues to do so. Probably because much of the rest of this country isn't as apathetic and defeatist as NY gun owners are. BTW, there is no "gun lobby". There are individual gun owners that band together to fight infringements, and there are gun owners that don't. NY has much of the latter.

I love the fact leftist believe Trump supporters are low IQ and uneducated. How stupid of them. The people who support Trump are most often successful business people, college educated, military officers and enlisted people, all ranks of law enforcement and emergency services, middle or upper management, middle or upper class, heads of a family and financially independent. The type of people who work each day and are very productive members of this society. Now, compare that to the people who supported Obama. I rest my case.

I agree! Obama was the Manchurian candidate. To this day, most of the information and records about his past, are sealed, so it's impossible to know where he came from, or who he was backed by. Trump's past is there for all to see, going back to the day he was born.

Randy Weaver won millions from the Federal government after this incident occurred and is now a wealthy man. BTW, labeling him a "White Separatist" is a smear. He was a gunsmith that did work on firearms for those people. He was not one of them. He was falsely accused of cutting a shotgun barrel to an illegal length in order for the feds to use it as leverage to get him to infiltrate and inform on, those people. When he refused, he was attacked by the feds. This is exactly the type of government activity that caused people to believe one cannot trust the government. The militia was always the citizen's arm of American defense, until it became obvious the US Government could be as big a threat to citizen's freedom as any outside force we could ever encounter. I'd be interested in seeing if this "documentary" shows the truth about what happened, or tries to turn it into an anti militia propaganda piece.

More media hyperbole designed to smear Trump's administration. Leaking classified info isn't just un-American, it's a crime! This leaked classified info comes from members of the intelligence community that do not like Trump or his goal of making this country great again. Too many of them have too much to lose. So they will do whatever they can to destroy his foreign policy agenda. They all need to be exposed and fired for working against the man in charge of their very existence. What exactly happened here? Flynn was accused of something he did NOT do, to the extent the media is saying he did. They say he violated the Logan Act of 1799. Nobody has ever been prosecuted under the 1799 Logan Act for anything. All of a sudden it's important? Do you know how many Obama administration officials could've been charged with the same offense? Besides, to date there is no evidence any crime has been committed. Trump should refuse the resignation and stand firm against all attackers. These CIA & FBI people are not looking out for what is best for the country. They are only concerned with what is best for them personally. They are practicing anarchy. If you are applauding this type of activity in our government, you are on the side of people who only want to destroy Trump, his administration and all the good that it is trying to do for this country. That means you are also disloyal to the idea of power in the hands of the people and a limited government. I despise people who believe big government is good and it can solve all of our problems. Government has never solved any problem that it has gotten involved with. It often creates problems, and then makes them even worse with it's "solutions" I challenge any of you Leftists to provide any example where big government has solved a problem for Americans. In the meantime, I'm once again assured there are many people in this land that want it to end.

TREY GOWDY NAILS IT ON THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/boom-trey-gowdys-statement-on-9th-circuit-travel-ban-ruling

I think we will see Obamacare actually found unconstitutional once a new Supreme Court judge is in place and it comes before the Supreme Court again. The same can be said about gay marriage. Those were obviously activist court rulings, much like Dred Scott, and are legally flawed. How do liberals find gay marriage in the 14th amendment and the governments right to force citizens to buy healthcare in the "Commerce Clause", but do not see gun rights in the 2nd? Simple, they wipe their azz with the Constitution. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't. It is not subject to activist court interpretation. At least not to people who understand the Rule of LAW.

Judicial Activism is Unconstitutional! 9th Circuit Has Rulings Reversed 80% Of The Time By The Supreme Court http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/9th-circuit-has-rulings-reversed-80-of-the-time-by-the-supreme-court

"The fundamental point is that it is not just the executive or Congress that can abuse its power and overstep its bounds. The courts can, too, and no one is obligated to meekly accept their decisions. If the courts throw out Trump's travel ban, despite the black-and-white letter of the law giving him the authority to block aliens in the interest of national security, it will be a usurpatory act. In that scenario, the courts will have done more violence to our constitutional system than a foolish Trump tweet ever could." —Rich Lowry

So we have now seen another example of an activist court that feels it can rule in violation of the law to support public policy that it likes. There's no question the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling Thursday night upholding the stay against Donald Trump's lawful order on travel was entirely political and had nothing to do with Rule of Law. Judicial meddling was absolutely egregious. The court essentially opposed Trump's order because the judges don't like it, and in the process they usurped presidential authority on matters of national security. They used possible harm to individuals to make a ruling about an entire class of people, which makes a hash out of the Supreme Court's doctrine on legal standing. Trump could have executed this better, and the courts absolutely got it wrong. But it's important to realize that this was also strategically calculated to play out in one of two ways: Either Trump got his way with the order (he didn't), or his base is (rightly) fired up about an activist judiciary just in time for Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Trump wins either way. There is a lot of time left in Trump's presidency, and this issue is not over. Once again, wait for it.

OK here's the general list. They all limited liberty and they should all have been attacked with lawsuits. Too bad the GOP failed to protect the rights of American citizens when Obama attacked them. And the fact Obama's DOJ was filled with political hacks that were corrupt and lawless prevented judicial review as well. This is what Obama created. this is why Obama is responsible for Trump becoming President.

Sure. Do you have any idea what hurdles people go through when they want to adopt? There's a huge shortage of infants for people hoping to adopt. Getting back to the judge who ruled against Trump's temporary immigration ban from a few select countries that sponsor terrorism: Rich Lowry: "If the law means anything, the Trump administration will succeed in overturning the so-called court ruling against its travel ban. The nationwide stay of the ban issued by Judge James Robart, a Washington state-based federal district judge, is tissue-thin. It doesn't bother to engage on the substance, presumably because facts, logic and the law don't support Robart's sweeping assertion of judicial authority in an area where judicial power is inherently quite limited. This doesn't justify President Donald Trump tweeting that Robart is a 'so-called judge.' That slam earned Trump bipartisan blowback and may encourage other judges to tilt against Trump's ban in response to a perceived threat to the independence of the judiciary. But Robart's handiwork is shoddy and usurpatory, despite the fact that he is indeed a literal judge. ... Judge Robart may not like the Trump policy, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal or unconstitutional. His ruling is worthy of the generally unhinged opposition to President Trump. If the judge doesn't deserve the abuse that Trump heaped on him on Twitter, he produced what should rightly be considered so-called jurisprudence."

No, the joke is Obama never had any at all.

I think you will be crying again when the higher court puts Judge Robart in his place and make him look like a man who has little respect for jurisprudence. Liberal Judges often prove they are the jackasses when they overturn the policies of conservative Presidents. Wait for it.

More schooling for those who believe Trump's order was overturned by this judge, or that it won't stand. http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-is-both-legal-and-constitutional/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpSbE1HTmpNVEZsTWpndyIsInQiOiJBVWIzN1B4UHRTaGhcL1VuSkJkZFE3YnhnYWJOVVFwbFlxMjlrKzNMY3B6QzUxTGliaXF2YUducldKZGl0MEZzMHY3YkRrWGhTemNqQVNZVmtYRE5mbzJDVE1TXC9WZGNVKzVTcXdvTmltMDJ6ZjdcL3lKaDNjYVBUdkpKcFBiMm1IdSJ9

Rich Lowry: "If President Donald Trump is a budding authoritarian, as his critics allege, one of the safeguards is Judge Neil Gorsuch. For all that Trump has flouted norms and gotten off to an at-times amateurish start in the White House, his pick of Gorsuch was extremely normal and highly professional. The Gorsuch nomination is exactly what everyone should want from a President Trump, especially those who most fear and loathe him. Yet Trump’s fiercest opponents began denouncing Gorsuch immediately. This is the dilemma for Democrats: Either Trump is a threat to the republic because he doesn’t appreciate the Constitution and is bound to violate it with excessive assertions of executive power, or Gorsuch is a threat to the republic because he has an overly punctilious view of the Constitution that entails, among other things, a dim view of executive overreach. Both can’t be true. The knee-jerk opposition to Gorsuch is a sign that Democrats either haven’t thought through what they believe about Trump or are seriously conflicted. Do they want to throw out the rule book because Trump is a potential dictator, or do they want to play by the conventional rules stipulating that they should fight a constitutionalist jurist because he won’t impose their progressive social agenda from the bench?"