Trump Administration Updates
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
NEW: The Trump administration's DHS has just ended collective bargaining for TSA officers.
DHS says, shockingly, TSA had more people doing "full-time union work" than actually performing security functions at 86% of airports.
Plus, 60% of "poor performers" were allowed to stay employed.
Wow.
Source: Fox Business
The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order. Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government, and we can’t let that happen. We have to remain UNITED — NO DISSENT — Fight for another day when the timing is right. VERY IMPORTANT. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Funny how rivals yahoo still will not allow truth social posts to be copied over and display. Obvious politically motivated.
Correction it appears.
BREAKING: The rumor that FBI Director Kash Patel asked for bodyguards that aren't from within the government is FALSE.
The claim was Patel is worried about getting harmed via an inside job.
Director Patel spokesman @_WilliamsonBen says: "Have seen this shared a number of places and it is 1,000% false. Not true."
🇺🇸HEAD OF FEDERAL DRUG TASK FORCE FIRED IN DOJ PURGE
Hours after helping draft a memo shifting his unit’s focus to illegal immigration, Adam Cohen was out of a job.
Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, his former defense lawyer, made the call.
He wasn’t the only one.
Three prosecutors investigating NYC Mayor Eric Adams were placed on leave, and multiple career officials were shown the door.
Resisting orders isn’t a great career move these days.
The message from Trump’s Department of Justice is loud and clear: get in line or get out.
Source: Reuters
HUGE WIN FOR TRUMP: Rep. Harriet Hageman just dropped a BOMBSHELL on those rogue liberal judges—Article 2 is OUR shield, and we’re taking back executive power!
Rep Hageman has significant experience in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, her expertise is cases involving constitutional implications:
Rep Harriet Hageman: Article 2 of the Constitution states that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." In other words, it is the President that defines the executive branch. When you read this language, it says that no court may take over that role. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the executive office of the President—the people who work in the Executive Office. I think that what your amendment does is a violation of separation of powers and is a violation of Article 2 of the Constitution.
Rep Darrel Issa: It's always good when a constitutional specialist comes in—it helps us all. So, what you're saying is that the bill codifies Article 2, for purposes of the court being reminded and instructed of their limitations, and the amendment would undo that?
Rep Harriet Hageman: That's exactly right, because then it would imply that a federal court could, in fact, define or limit the scope of the duties of those individuals who work within the Executive Office of the President. That is not a federal court's role. That is for, under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that power is vested in a President of the United States of America.
Rep Darrel Issa: In your understanding, is that with the current President or the last one or the next one, if we don't do something like this, realistically, the Chief Executive, well, President, would continue to have to answer a myriad of claims in up to— not just 50 states, but multiple places in 50 states—and if that tactic was used even more so than it may have been used in the past, that you would have a President having to use non-official funds to answer a series of cases alleged not to be that way. Is that true?
Rep Harriet Hageman: That's the way that I read this, and I think that it's very clear—especially starting in 2017, when President Trump was sworn in the first time—that the courts have been used for nefarious purposes on a variety of issues. In fact, yesterday we had a hearing in our constitutional subcommittee about lawfare, and how lawfare had been weaponized against President Trump both while he was President as well as after his presidency. So, again, I guess that I'm very skeptical of the idea that people are not willing to use lawfare to go after a current or former President. We've seen this over the last nine years in many different instances. But the President is the one who gets to define the limit and scope of the duties of the personnel within his office—that is very clear from Article 2 of the Constitution.
tumblr: grumpyseaman
