What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[MadImmortalMan]

Basing your ideology primarily on guilt rather than life is how people come to the opinion that abortion is bad and the death penalty is good.

[Sophie Scholl]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/conways-ivanka-product-endorsement-apparently-broke-the-law.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Kellyanne Conway's Endorsement of Ivanka Products Apparently Violates Federal Law

President Trump has been obliterating existing norms about using his office for personal enrichment. "Norms" is the key word — federal law strictly regulates conflicts of interest of every federal employee except the president, who is assumed (or was assumed, before Trump came along) to refrain from using his office for personal gain. In their few weeks in office, Trump's staff have apparently gotten comfortable enough with the arrangement that they are now routinely blending their roles as spokespeople for Trump the president and Trump the brand. Kellyanne Conway used an interview from the White House this morning to officially endorse the Ivanka Trump product line.

This appears to be completely illegal. Federal law is pretty clear about this:

<snip>

Kellyanne Conway is a federal employee. A federal employee may not "use his public office for his own private gain [or] for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise." And this was definitely an endorsement. Conway said, "This is just wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully — I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."

Conway has gotten used to channeling Trump's beliefs and advocating his interests. But she seems to have forgotten that a legal loophole allows him to engage in wildly kleptocratic behavior without any legal consequences, but if she does the same it's not merely unethical but actually illegal.

Though I'm sure nothing will come of it.

Hell, we're not even allowed to suggest specific restaurants to visitors, regardless of said visitors' requests.  It's annoying as hell.

[CountDeMoney]

It's amazing;  this Administration is going to be breaking laws left and right, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

[Liep]

It's amazing;  this Administration is going to be breaking laws left and right, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

Isn't it more important to think about all the laws that they're not breaking that are affecting everyday real Americans?

[viper37]

California Farmers Backed Trump, but Now Fear Losing Field Workers

[Valmy]

Eh their votes were meaningless since they lived in California.

[Eddie Teach]

But seriously the secessionists in California can go fuck themselves.

Agreed. Over Siege's dead body.

[Sophie Scholl]

Eh their votes were meaningless since they lived in California.

Their votes were overwhelmed by all of their illegal laborers voting for Hillary.  After they picked up their full tuition scholarships, collected welfare, collected social security, killed some innocent white children and white old people, and then escaped back across the wide open border.

[derspiess]

Any other reason I should feel warm fuzzies about Lee J.E.B. Longstreet Forrest Sessions?

You could just be happy for me for once 

[jimmy olsen]

I hate it when these folks give me hope, when I know nothing will come of it.

https://apnews.com/c84b8b6ca303442c94977f1f64fd2e60/The-Latest:-House-oversight-chairman-says-Conway-was-%27wrongp

2:40 p.m.

House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz says White House counselor Kellyanne Conway's promotion of Ivanka Trump's fashion brand was "wrong, wrong, wrong, clearly over the line, unacceptable."

The Republican congressman said the White House must refer the matter to the Office of Government Ethics for review. He said he and Democratic Oversight Leader Elijah Cummings are writing a letter to the office and he will also write to President Donald Trump about the matter.

"It needs to be dealt with," he told The Associated Press. "There's no ifs, ands or buts about it."

Chaffetz was referring to Conway's Thursday interview with Fox News in which she boasted she was giving the president's daughter "a free commercial here" and urged viewers to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff."

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Conway has been "counseled." Chaffetz said that isn't enough.

___

[viper37]

Eh their votes were meaningless since they lived in California.

I know.  But they're still morons.

[Solmyr]

But seriously the secessionists in California can go fuck themselves.

Agreed. Over Siege's dead body.

Can they fuck Siege's dead body at the same time?

[Eddie Teach]

My money's on the Jew.

[jimmy olsen]

On to the Supreme Court

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ninth-circuit-travel-ban-2017-story.html

9th Circuit Court refuses to reinstate Trump's controversial travel ban


By Maura Dolan and Jaweed Kaleem •Contact Reporters

February 9, 2017, 3:20 PM



In a significant pushback from the judiciary, a federal appeals court decided Thursday to continue blocking enforcement of President Trump's executive order barring travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Seattle federal judge's earlier restraining order on the new policy should remain in effect while the judge further examines its legality.


"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury," the panel of two Democratic appointees and a Republican unanimously decided in an unsigned opinion.

"We therefore deny [the government's] emergency motion for a stay," the court said.

The controversial travel moratorium signed Jan. 27 stirred chaos at airports and protests worldwide as at least 60,000 visas were canceled, including those held by students visiting families abroad and engineers working in the U.S.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the order last week after concluding that a challenge by the states of Washington and Minnesota was likely to succeed.

The Seattle-based judge, appointed by President George W. Bush, also concluded that halting the ban — at least for a while — would cause no undue harm to the country.

Administration lawyers have argued that the country could be at risk of a terrorist attack until heightened vetting measures for travelers from those countries are put into place.

The court rejected the Trump administration's argument that the courts lacked the right to review the president's executive order. "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the panel said.

"Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict," the panel added.

The court said the states were likely to succeed in their due process claim, noting that the executive order was issued without notice or hearing prior to restricting an individual's ability to travel.

The judges also said they took note of the "serious nature" of the states' claim that the travel ban, because it targets Muslim-majority nations and provides exceptions for members of religious minorities, constitutes religious discrimination.

"We express no view as to any of the States' other claims," the court said.

The Trump administration can appeal the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has four Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees and may be unable to reach a majority decision. The seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia remains vacant.

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said it was difficult to predict whether the Supreme Court would review the decision.

"They don't want a 4-4 split,  but they really like having the last word on high-profile case," the constitutional law expert said.

Speaking at a White House event with U.S. sheriffs on Tuesday, Trump said he "could" take the travel ban case to the Supreme Court.

"Oh, we're going to take it through the system. It's very important. It's very important for the country, regardless of me or whoever succeeds at a later date. I mean, we have to have security in our country. We have to have the ability," said Trump, who spoke before the appeals court heard arguments over the case.

"We will see. Hopefully it doesn't have to," he said when asked about the nation's highest court taking on the travel ban. "It's common sense. You know, some things are law, and I'm all in favor of that. And some things are common sense. This is common sense."

The restraining order prevents Trump's ban from being implemented nationwide, but does not bind other circuit courts.

Dozens of federal judges around the country have ruled on other challenges to the travel ban,  and an appeals court from another circuit could reach a different conclusion on an appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides not to review the 9th Circuit decision or can't muster a majority vote, the ruling from the San Francisco court will remain in place while the Seattle judge further examines its legality.

Trump's executive order, issued only seven days after the president took office, placed a 90-day block on admission of citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, all of which administration officials say have links to terrorism.

It also included a 120-day ban on all refugee admissions, indefinite suspension of the admission of Syrian refugees and preference for refugees who are members of persecuted religious minorities.

Washington and Minnesota sued Trump, maintaining the order was hurting their businesses and disrupting their public universities.

They argued the ban flouted the Constitution's bar on religious discrimination and violated the constitutional rights of people who had been living and working in the U.S. under valid visas.

The law requires appellate courts to be highly deferential to trial judges when examining a temporary restraining order.

To overturn one, an appeals court must find that that the judge made a clear and unreasonable decision or an "abuse of discretion."

During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed he would make the country safer from terrorism by barring Muslims from other countries from entering.

But federal lawyers defending the ban said the seven countries targeted in the executive order were designated not because they were predominantly Muslim but because Congress and the Obama administration had linked them to terrorism.

The Trump administration also argued that the president could not be second-guessed by the courts on his executive action because as
a matter of law he has authority over foreign relations and national security.

The 9th Circuit, which decides federal matters for nine Western states, is considered one of the more liberal circuit courts in the nation.

But the most liberal of the 9th Circuit's judges, those appointed by President Carter, are gradually retiring from the court.

The Clinton and Obama appointees are generally viewed as much more moderate, and judges chosen during the past five terms of Republican presidents tend to be conservative or moderately conservative.


Also, judges are randomly selected for the three-member panels, and depending on whose names are drawn, a  panel can be conservative, liberal or middle of the road.

The Seattle case that led to the 9th Circuit review is among dozens of lawsuits going through federal district courts over the travel ban.


In Virginia, a Friday hearing was scheduled in front of a federal judge in a case brought by the state, which has asked for a preliminary injunction against the ban. There is also a hearing scheduled in late February in Brooklyn, where a federal judge handed the American Civil Liberties Union the first legal victory against the ban when she issued an emergency order to halt deportations of visa holders who had arrived in the U.S. but were denied entry.

New federal lawsuits are also still being filed, including one filed on Thursday in Washington, D.C., on behalf of several Iranian American organizations.

[Eddie Teach]

If the Supreme Court is evenly split, does that mean the lower court's decision stands?