Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

President Moon Jae-in and U.S. President Donald Trump spent about 40 minutes on the phone Monday between Seoul and Singapore.

Presidential Spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom said Moon praised Trump's courageous decision making and strong leadership which enabled the summit to happen.

Moon said if the U.S.-North Korea summit succeeds, it will make a good present not only for the world but also for Trump?s own birthday on Thursday.

Trump told Moon that he will send U.S. State Secretary Mike Pompeo to South Korea immediately after the summit for detailed brief on its outcomes, and will coordinate closely with Moon to implement any potential agreements.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I am changing my moniker to WIZARb. I will announce tomorrow what it means.

[AlabamAlum]

The b stands for butt-ranger?

[crashcourse]

I would have guessed bumblingbuffoon

[Jeff Buchanan]

I am changing my moniker to WIZARb. I will announce tomorrow what it means.

No, since IHOP is in WIz's top 5 favorite restaurants, I believe the WAZARb has gotten on board with IHOP's new name ...... IHOb.

The IHOpancake thing just wasn't working so, IHOP decided to become International House of burgers - IHOb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618844977/ihop-becomes-ihob-the-international-house-of-burgers

[Jeff Buchanan]

Among the many articles I've read about Trump's foreign policy doctrine or his strategic vision, this one rather leaps out at you:

The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine.

?No,? the official said. ?There?s definitely a Trump Doctrine.?

?What is it (Trump's foreign policy doctrine or strategic vision) ?? I asked. Here is the answer I received:

?The Trump Doctrine is ?We?re America, Bitch.? That?s the Trump Doctrine.?

Hack, Jon, do you have a problem with this ...... bitches

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/a-senior-white-house-official-defines-the-trump-doctrine-were-america-bitch/562511/

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm not exactly sure why Canada or Italy are in the G7. Personally, I'm fine if it's the G6 next time.

Canada has the 10th largest economy in the world and Italy is #8. And both the UK and France are significantly more comparable to Canada than the US or China

EDIT: Canada passed Russia just in the past 5 years

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...omies-in-2018/

[iam416]

Incorrect! Are you questioning John Kerry?s patriotism?

[Dr. Strangelove]

We'll rue the day we questioned John Kerry's patriotism

[Dr. Strangelove]

Lengthy defense for the appointment of Robert Mueller written by Kellyanne Conway's husband, George, a longtime conservative lawyer

A final observation: It isn?t very surprising to see the president tweet a meritless legal position, because, as a non-lawyer, he wouldn?t know the difference between a good one and a bad one. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers making inventive and novel arguments on behalf of their clients, or on behalf of causes or people they support, if the arguments are well-grounded in law and fact, even if the arguments ultimately turn out to be wrong. But the ?constitutional? arguments made against the special counsel do not meet that standard and had little more rigor than the tweet that promoted them. Such a lack of rigor, sadly, has been a disturbing trend in much of the politically charged public discourse about the law lately, and one that lawyers?regardless of their politics?owe a duty to abjure

https://lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation

[Dr. Strangelove]

In contrast, Talent once wrote a 1,000-word essay arguing for the inclusion of the Tony Danza classic Going Ape! in the Library of Congress for historical preservation.

[Kapture1]

Lengthy defense for the appointment of Robert Mueller written by Kellyanne Conway's husband, George, a longtime conservative lawyer

A final observation: It isn?t very surprising to see the president tweet a meritless legal position, because, as a non-lawyer, he wouldn?t know the difference between a good one and a bad one. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers making inventive and novel arguments on behalf of their clients, or on behalf of causes or people they support, if the arguments are well-grounded in law and fact, even if the arguments ultimately turn out to be wrong. But the ?constitutional? arguments made against the special counsel do not meet that standard and had little more rigor than the tweet that promoted them. Such a lack of rigor, sadly, has been a disturbing trend in much of the politically charged public discourse about the law lately, and one that lawyers?regardless of their politics?owe a duty to abjure

https://lawfareblog.com/terrible-arg...-investigation

The Mueller appointment is unconstitutional. Brought to you by the same man that was first to point out that a sitting president cant be indicted way back in March of 2017.



The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Mueller is not an inferior appointee, but a principal appointee as understood under our constitutional. His powers are more akin to an United States attorney, not an assistant United States attorney. Moreover, his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, treats him as a principal officer -- that is, Mueller is mostly free to conduct his investigation with few limits or restraints. The parameters of his appointment were extraordinarily broad in the first instance, and have only expanded since then. Indeed, Mueller is more powerful than most United States attorneys, all of whom were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as principal officers. Furthermore, Rosenstein mostly rubber stamps Mueller's decisions and is not involved in the regular management and oversight of Mueller to any significant extent, underscoring Mueller's role not as an inferior officer but a principal officer. As such, Mueller's appointment violates the Appointments Clause. Mueller would've had to be nominated for Senate confirmation like any other principal officer in the Executive Branch. Rosenstein did not have the constitutional power to appoint a principal officer on his own anymore than the President himself does. To do otherwise is to defy the procedure established by the Framers for making such consequential executive appointments. It follows, then, that every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement involving the Mueller investigation is null and void. Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause.


i look forward to Levin's takedown of Coways take on it

[iam416]

When Tony Danza was on his game there was none better. Except Ned Beatty. I long ago wrote off the Academy over their refusal to rectify years of wrongs, slights and malfeasance by awarding him a lifetime achievement award. Motherfuckers.

[Kapture1]

Haha Trump got played ( as predicted by anyone with more than half a brain) and now he's trying to save face and his base of morons is buying it.

Who'd a thunk it?

....... I just can't help it.

I thought Trump had this all figured out, the meeting was planned in advance of announcements of it. It was going to happen.

The NKs have once again repeated their similar tap dance, offering up tasty morsels of concessions and then pulling the rug out from under the West's feet.

At least DJT got out in front of this and cancelled it like a jilted wife sues for Divorce before the husband can.

Played like a fiddle.

Collector's item!!!!
kim-jong-un-coin.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1.jpg

Goodbye, Nobel

:::sad trombone:::

they just finished destroying the site this morning.

"Know when to walk away from the table." - The Art of the Deal


we get our hostages, they lose their test site, sanctions are still in place. they gave up everything they had minus their nukes, we gave up nothing and will continue to squeeze the life out of their economy.

obviously we want the meeting, we want them to give up their nukes. we don't want to be in the position 0bama was with Iran, and agree to a garbage deal.

Arguments to be made that Kim scored several propaganda successes...got treated like an equal...got some photos shaking hands with Pompeo...etc. Certainly not a crushing victory.

The impact on South Korea will be interesting. Moon has spent months kissing Trump's ass and they claim today that they didn't even get a heads up about this.

Winning!

MAGA!

Jesus. The morons are eating it up

"We were told that the meeting was requested by North Korea, but that to us is totally irrelevant"

What a fucking petty dumbass child.

If it was irrelevant, why say anything about it?

MAGA!

Glad to see you finally admit it.

The Orange Monkey is a fucking disaster.

All of this winning is wearing me out.

MAGA!

yes, but i wouldn't rule out the June 12 meeting from happening. or a summit taking place in the future

[Dr. Strangelove]

Kapture- Mark Levin's drivel was addressed in detail by Conway. Levin hasn't practiced law in almost 30 years since he discovered there's a lot more money to be made screaming into a radio mic.That segment you quote demonstrates you didn't read Conway's piece AT ALL because he is responding to the tripe Levin and other like him are vomiting up all over the Constitution.Either read Conway's piece or don't (you won't because he destroys Levin's arguments which precede Conway and aren't even original to Levin).

Calabresi?s first point?the illustrative comparison between Mueller and the U.S. attorneys?begins with a badly mistaken premise. Without citing anything at all, he repeatedly assumes, in both his op-ed and his ?Legal Opinion? paper, that ?Congress has specified that the 96 [sic] U.S. Attorneys are all principal officers who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.? (Emphasis mine.)

This assumption is just wrong?uncomplicatedly, flatly wrong. It is true that, typically, the 93 (not 96) U.S. attorneys are presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed. But Congress has established an alternative method of appointment. Title 28 U.S.C. ? 546 provides that, until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee, U.S. attorney vacancies can be filled for up to 120 days by an appointment made by the attorney general and then indefinitely by local district courts. Such non-presidential, non-Senate-confirmed appointees are, as one court of appeals has put it, ?fully-empowered United States Attorneys, ? not subordinates assuming the role of ?Acting? United States Attorney.? And such fully-empowered, non-presidentially-appointed U.S. attorneys are not all that uncommon. Today, the sitting United States attorneys in two of the most important judicial districts in the country?the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York?were appointed by the judges of those districts under Section 546(d).