FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Aunt Georgette

I recall this song from many years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1wEVPqFFCg

If I Knew You Were Coming I’d of Baked a Cake by Eileen Barton...Plenty of energy. Enjoy! My aunt Georgette entertained me many times with this song. She was a pianist with a beautiful soprano voice.

She was afflicted by polio and died too young. I miss her these many years later. Our oldest daughter is named in her memory. A sad note here is I gave up playing the piano after her death on my ninth birthday.

She was an excellent swimmer and worked out frequently with Shirley May France. Ms. France nearly succeeded in being the first woman to successfully swim the English Channel.

Georgette performed in may venues (mostly churches) including an engagement in St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC just before the start of WWII.

One of my fondest memories of her was when she would allow my to play Boogie Woogie as a reward for a good lesson.. Otherwise I was guided to classical music (mostly Chopin because he was French).

Some of the succeeding music is fun as well.

Enjoy!

 

Abused, Raped Women to Democrat Icon Bill Clinton: ‘Go to Hell’

Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey said they wouldn't accept an apology from unrepentant former president after accusing him of rape, sexual assault

by Kathryn Blackhurst

Two women who accused former President Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting them told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday night on “The Ingraham Angle” that they would tell him to “go to hell” if he now attempted to apologize to them personally.

Juanita Broaddrick (shown above, right) accused Clinton of raping her in her hotel room in 1978. Kathleen Willey (above, left) claimed that Clinton groped her without her consent in a White House hallway in 1993. Clinton denied the allegations when they surfaced in the late 1990s and worked to discredit them, pointing to alleged discrepancies in the two women’s accounts.

But in the era of the #MeToo movement — which highlights women’s stories of abuse by influential men in superior/subordinate relationships — Americans began to revisit the allegations against Clinton.

The former president nevertheless angrily defended himself during an interview that aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show, during which reporter Craig Melvin asked him if he had re-evaluated his conduct during and after his infamous affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

When Melvin asked if he had ever apologized to Lewinsky, Clinton claimed he had "apologized to everybody in the world."

But to the question of whether Clinton had ever personally apologized to Lewinsky, an unapologetic Clinton replied, "I have not talked to her."

"Do you feel like you owe her an apology?" Melvin asked. Clinton replied, "No. I have not talked to her, but I did say publicly, on more than one occasion, that I was sorry."

News of the Lewinsky affair first broke in January 1998, and the resulting scandal led to Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives in December 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate, also controlled by Republicans, declined to convict Clinton.

"If Clinton got that upset discussing Lewinsky, imagine if the 'Today' show had asked him about the women who told him, 'No,'" Ingraham said.

"I saw this decrepit, angry old man who was trying to play the victim card — the same man who 40 years ago raped me," Broaddrick told Ingraham. "It was disgusting."

Broaddrick said that Clinton approached her in 1991 to apologize for his behavior while she was attending a nursing home seminar.

"He rushes over to me, and he starts this profuse apology and saying, 'I'm so sorry for what I did. I'm a changed man. I'm just not the man I used to be,' and even said, 'I'm a family man now,'" Broaddrick paraphrased.

"I just looked at him, Laura, and I — I was just flabbergasted. And I said, 'You go to hell,'" Broaddrick added. "And I walked off. I could not believe it."

Broaddrick told Ingraham that she "began to feel a little bad that I had said that" because she kept thinking, "Well, maybe he really meant that. Maybe he really was apologizing. A week later after he apologized, he announced he was running for president."

Willey told Ingraham she was "speechless" and "outraged" when she saw Clinton's "Today" show interview.

"I could not believe the words that were coming out of his mouth. And he was so arrogant and pompous about the whole thing," Willey said. "I think he actually does believe that he didn't do anything wrong."

"And, you know, this blanket apology, 'I've apologized to everybody in the world,' — well, okay. But he hasn't apologized to the people that he hurt and the people that he destroyed, the women that he destroyed," Willey continued.

"He hasn't apologized to me. He has not apologized to Paula [Jones]. He apologized to Juanita, but, as we see, there was a plan to that. There was a purpose to that."

Willey said she doesn't believe that Clinton will ever try to apologize to her. "He never will. He doesn't get it. It's just the way it is."

When Ingraham asked Willey if she would accept an apology from Clinton, Willey replied, "No, I'd tell him the same thing Juanita told him. I'd tell him to go to hell."

Broaddrick insisted there isn't "any redemption in regard to Bill and Hillary Clinton."

"I do not believe that," Broaddrick said. "And I would probably tell him the same thing again today."

PoliZette writer Kathryn Blackhurst can be reached at kathryn.blackhurst@lifezette.com. Follow her on Twitter.

Supreme Court Sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop in Same-Sex Wedding Ruling

AP Photo/Brennan Linsle

The Supreme Court granted a narrow victory to people of faith on Monday, holding 7-2 that the Constitution did not allow the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to order Christian baker Jack Phillips to bake a wedding cake for same-sex weddings because a commissioner said Phillips’ Christian beliefs on marriage were “despicable.”

The Court left open for another case the broader question of whether the government can force people of faith to participate in same-sex weddings when the government does not openly show open hostility to their religious beliefs.

Little by Little, The Big, Beautiful Wall is Being Built

By The Common Constitutionalist  

Slow but sure, the Southern border wall is being built. If this is how president Trump has to get it done, so be it, and I guess we should be thankful.

We should be thankful that there is finally someone at the top who does give a crap and someone who is determined to keep his campaign pledge – not just drop it because it’s just “too hard,” or he might waste some important “political capital.”

And please stop with the mocking refrains about Mexico paying for the wall. Like that’s of paramount importance. If it eventually happens – great. Otherwise Trump’s exclamation should be taken as it was intended – a purposely hyperbolic negotiating tactic.

We should be thankful that we have a president who has not given up on the project, despite opposition from both sides. He is also fighting the derelict Washington mindset that dictates if something isn’t “comprehensive,” it should not even be considered. If “comprehensive” border legislation can’t be passed, nothing should be. That’s not defeatist at all.

As a real estate guy, Trump knows that sometimes you have to just take what you can get and build one building at a time – or one stretch of wall at a time.

In April, construction of a new wall section started, which will span about 20 miles of the Mexico/New Mexico border, just west of the El Paso Texas area, and will range between 18 and 30 ft high. Yep – it’s only 20 miles, but it’s 20 miles more than we’ve gotten under anyone else.

The new wall section has a few improvements over its old counterparts.

First, it’s an actual wall, not just a dilapidated fence or some posts dug into the ground to prevent vehicles from crossing, but not people. It is constructed of close-fitted vertical posts, allowing border agents to see through, but has a 5 ft high flat and smooth steel plate at the very top to prevent climbing over, and is sunk into several feet of concrete. Old designs were merely driven into the dirt and were easy to tunnel under.

Of course not everyone is thrilled, such as the Mayor of El Paso, Dee Margo. The press couldn’t wait to remind us that he is a Republican.

He’s no Republican I would ever support. The Mayor, who favors Beto O’Rourke over Ted Cruz, says that anti-illegal immigrant and border wall “rhetoric has been more harmful than helpful.” He adds that, “You cannot tell the difference between where El Paso ends and Mexico begins. We’re really one community and have been for over 400 years.” Apparently, this is not a problem.

Well Mr. Mayor, you two-faced fool – that’s been the problem since December 29, 1845, when Texas became a State. You can’t have a nation without clearly defined borders and the wall would also help the Mayor’s obvious topographic deficiency by showing him, “where Mexico ends and El Paso begins.”

Just this past Friday, June 1st, construction of yet another section of border wall began. This time in San Diego. It is of the same design as the New Mexico wall, complete with 5 ft high, steel anti-climbing plate. This section is to be approximately 14 miles in length.

Again – we’ll take what we can get.

“The San Diego Sector wall construction is one of Border Patrol’s top priority projects,” the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statement said. “Not only does it significantly upgrade our existing infrastructure in San Diego, it also marks the third concurrent wall project in the U.S. and reflects CBP’s unwavering commitment to secure our borders and protect our Nation.”

I find myself doing this a lot lately, but once again I’d like to thank president Trump for sticking to his guns and not giving up on this issue.

OUCH: Ann Coulter Goes For The Jugular After Joy Reid Accuses Her Of Being A Man

Last week, more damning blog posts made by MSNBC host Joy Reid over a decade ago were unearthed, where on at least one occasion she wrote that conservative commentator Ann Coulter was actually a man.

During an interview Friday on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” Coulter addressed the vile comments made by Reid, and she went for the jugular.

Coulter said liberal women, like Reid,  “have rolls of fat on their neck.”

“And then there’s the always popular calling me a man for having a beautiful swan-like neck,” Coulter said. “Liberal women, as long as we’re being frank here, aren’t used to that because they have rolls of fat on their neck. They’re really taken aback by my beautiful swan-like neck.”

Watch below:

Coulter clapping back at Reid came in response to a new trove of disgusting blog posts discovered on Reid’s old blog, The Reid Report.

Prior to Coulter’s interview with Ingraham on Friday, Reid and MSNBC released statements after new posts on her old blog revealed Reid promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, questioned Israel’s right to exist, and used a photoshopped image of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, as the Virginia Tech shooter.

Here’s the statement:

MSNBC just sent this statement from Joy Reid. It seems to take responsibility – but does not do so explicitly – for the Loose Change and McCain posts, but does not address the FBI investigation pic.twitter.com/d7Oa5yKZmJ

— Joe Bernstein (@Bernstein) June 1, 2018

As noted by The Daily Wire, neither statements denied that Reid wrote the posts herself nor did they address Reid’s previous claims that she was hacked, which she implied was the cause of the disgusting posts being on her blog. Reid also said earlier this year that the FBI was investigating whether her blog was hacked, which she also didn’t acknowledge in her statement.

Prior to last week, numerous posts were found on Reid’s blog where she was slandering homosexuals.

Twitter user “Jamie Maz” posted screenshots of a few homophobic posts allegedly written by Reid before they were wiped from the website.

Thread – 1/x Joy Reid's homophobic blog posts were far worse than 1st reported.

They also had nothing to do with Republican hypocrisy on gay marriage. Joy also opposed gay marriage at the time. She gleefully accused people of being gay and posted a number of questionable things. pic.twitter.com/ZloivXczTS

— Not a bot (@Jamie_Maz) April 18, 2018

2/x Top 5 "totally not gay celebrities of the year".

Using your media platform to out people you think is gay to get clicks has nothing to do with Republicans hypocrisy on gay marriage. pic.twitter.com/0B921itHkj

— Not a bot (@Jamie_Maz) April 18, 2018

Reid has come under intense fire because her story continues to change about her old blog and the countless disgusting posts that she allegedly wrote.

Last month, Reid admitted to writing the posts. Then, she claimed her website was hacked and that she didn’t know how the posts got on her website. Now, she is apologizing for the posts, but refuses to admit whether she wrote them and, if she did, why she lied about being hacked and got the FBI involved in a lie.

While all of this has unfolded, MSNBC has not suspended Reid and she still has a show on the network.

Reid more than likely made these sickening comments and now she is trying to save face. She has a history of being racist, and now we know she’s a homophobe who slanders homosexuals, promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories, and questioned Israel’s right to exist.

Coulter’s comment has dominated headlines in recent days, with many applauding the conservative commentator for firing back at Reid.



California Bans Travel to Oklahoma over ‘Discriminatory’ Gay Adoption Law, OU-UCLA Football Likely Exempted

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

The state of California has banned travel to Oklahoma over its supposed “discriminatory” gay adoption law, but OU-UCLA football will likely be exempted, a report says.

The ban was leveled as part of California’s 2017 law that prohibits the state’s public university systems from sending students or staff to states deemed politically incorrect for one reason or another. Despite the ban, though, California’s athletic teams have in some cases been permitted to travel to the “banned” states despite the designation.

As June began, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that Oklahoma had been added as the ninth state on the banned travel list after the “Sooner State” passed what California deemed “discriminatory legislation” that would allow private adoption services to refuse to place children with gay couples based on religious grounds.

According to Becerra’s office, “Oklahoma will be added to the list of restricted states for state-funded travel based on the discriminatory law that would allow private adoption agencies to refuse services to LGBTQ parents and foster children based on religious/moral grounds.”

Oklahoma joins eight other states on the banned travel list. The other states include Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

Still, despite the ban, UCLA’s football team is still scheduled to travel to Oklahoma for a Sept. 8 game and the schedule is not likely going to be changed. The excuse for keeping the game is that the home-and-home series was scheduled back in 2013, several years before California’s travel ban was instituted, according to NewsOK.

So far the state’s travel ban has not had full impact on college sports even though the law ostensibly does cover travel from all colleges that take state funding. But as previously scheduled games fall off the list, the ban will have more impact. Already many California colleges are seeking private funding to cover the costs of conferences and games in the banned states, but that stopgap likely still violates the spirit of the law.

As the possibility looms that the ban will have more serious effects, some lawmakers think that the ban should be re-tooled to exempt college sports. Indeed, Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, recently introduced Assembly Bill 2389 that would do just that by exempting state-supported college athletics from the travel ban.

There have been other consequences from the ban, as well. For instance, the travel law has many college athletic programs worried over recruiting concerns. Colleges are starting to find that some top prospects are expressing less interest in attending school in a state that won’t let students compete on a national scale.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Moe note:  California is truly the land of fruits and nuts.

Gingrich: We’re Closer to a ‘Red Wave’ Than a ‘Blue Wave’ in November

Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted a “red wave” in the 2018 midterm elections.

Gingrich said, “For everybody in America who thinks that the cost of living is too low the Democrats are a great party for them, because they will raise taxes as they have in California with this huge gas tax increase. I actually believe we are closer to a red wave than a blue wave.”

He added, “Now if you went back to December, frankly I was concerned. The huge generic gap we had not yet passed the tax cuts. Things didn’t feel right. People were upset that they had a year and things hadn’t been accomplished but starting with passing the tax cuts, with what President Trump has done consistently on conservative judges, on deregulation, on trade negotiations, what he’s done with North Korea. I think people now have a sense that we’re moving in the right direction and as a result for example, in the Senate, I think — I can’t imagine I don’t know of anybody who’s a serious student who believes the Democrats have any hope of winning the Senate.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Super Photos of Titanic
Very Rare

http://www.eyeopening.info/2014/04/21/rare-photos-titanic-20-pics  

SUPREMES LIFT DECISION ORDERING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO FACILITATE ABORTIONS FOR ALIEN MINORS

In a partial victory for the Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling requiring the government to facilitate an abortion for an undocumented minor in federal custody.

The unsigned five-page opinion did not issue a judgement as to the merits of the dispute but approved the administration’s request to vacate the ruling under a legal rule called Munsingwear vacatur. There was no noted dissent.

“We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside a lower court decision that allowed for an unaccompanied minor to receive an abortion while in federal custody,” the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services said in a joint statement after the ruling. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the federal government is not obligated to help a minor get an abortion and may choose policies favoring life over abortion.”

Munsingwear provides that a case which is mooted pending Supreme Court review should be expunged. Because the undocumented minor at issue procured an abortion before the justices could review the matter — thereby ending the dispute — the government argued Munsingwear should apply.

The case, Azar v. Garza, was occasioned in October 2017, when an undocumented teen in federal custody, known in court papers only as Jane Doe, learned she was pregnant and asked authorities to terminate her pregnancy. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services refused, claiming it had no obligation to facilitate abortions for minors in their care.  

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded the government’s actions imposed an undue burden on abortion access, in violation to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The migrant terminated her pregnancy on Oct. 25, before the Department of Justice could appeal to the justices.

The administration also asked the high court to sanction the ACLU’s lawyers, arguing they made false representations as to the schedule of the migrant’s medical consultations in order to procure her abortion. The justice’s declined to act on the request.

“The Court need not delve into the factual disputes raised by the parties in order to answer the Munsingwear question here,” the decision reads.

Jon Tester Goes To Court To Save His Seat
JAZZ SHAW

It’s become something of a cliche this year to say that Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) is in trouble. He’s been at or near the top of everyone’s list of Dem senators ripe for having his seat flipped. Donald Trump carried Montana by 20 points in 2016 and there has been no appreciable “blue wave” in evidence in Big Sky Country since then. Tester has done an admirable job of portraying himself as a Blue Dog in two election cycles, swerving far enough toward the middle to attract sufficient Republican and independent votes to win two terms, but the times have been changing.

And now, already nervous about his prospects, Tester is facing yet another obstacle, this time from his left flank. The Green Party gathered enough signatures to get on the ballot this year and they’re hosting a primary with some solid candidates. This could siphon off enough votes to put Tester out of the running. (Keep in mind that Tester didn’t manage to get 50% of the vote in either of his victories.) So what are the Democrats going to do about it? They’re suing to throw the Green Party off the ballot. (Washington Times)

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana was already facing a tough re-election battle in a state that Donald Trump won by a landslide — and then the Green Party made the Democrat’s job that much tougher by qualifying for the ballot.

Now the Montana Democratic Party is scrambling to oust the Greens. It has asked a judge to decertify the left-wing party by declaring 180 petition signatures invalid for reasons such as bad handwriting, use of initials instead of full names and failure to write in cursive.

The lawsuit, filed April, 2 has the Greens seeing red. They accuse state Democrats of trying to disenfranchise voters in a politically motivated attack.

“They’re scared,” said Danielle Breck, Montana Green Party coordinator. “There seems to be this belief that we’re going to spoil the race, particularly [for] Jon Tester. His seat is at risk, and they’re afraid we’re going to siphon votes from them.”

This isn’t the Green Party you’re used to seeing in other races. They’ve recruited some serious candidates for their primary, including Steve Kelly, a former Democratic nominee for the state’s sole House seat. And that’s where the real problem for Tester and the state Democratic party is coming from. The Greens are attracting a lot of liberal Democrats who are tired of running a Blue Dog and want somebody more in the Bernie Sanders mold. Kelly even released a statement reminding everyone that Sanders carried Montana in the 2016 Democratic primary.

When you’re in a position like Tester’s, squeaking by with plurality wins, you pretty much need every Democratic vote out there plus some Republicans and independents to pull off a win. If a Berniecrat draws off a bunch of votes from your base the race is probably over before it begins.

The tactic that the Democrats are using is a tried and true method straight out of the campaign manager playbook. The Greens needed 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot, with a minimum count in each of the state’s legislative district. They turned in more than 10,000, with more than 7,300 of them being eventually certified. Now Tester’s backers are asking for many of them to be thrown out, seeking to establish a pattern which might convince the judge to toss the Green Party from the ballot.

The parties involved only have until Friday to make their respective cases and the primary is scheduled for next week. Even if the Democrats prevail, it’s going to look awfully fishy to take the Greens off the general election ballot after they’ve had their primary and selected a candidate. Break out the popcorn, because the Montana Senate race just became even more interesting.



Michael Graham Commentary: Can President Donald Trump pardon himself? Yes

Should he pardon himself? Well, actually...The instant answer should be "of course not!" The political price of a president pardoning himself should be so high that no one would ever consider it. As President Trump's microphone-friendly attorney Rudy Giuliani said on NBC Sunday, "Pardoning himself would be unthinkable and probably lead to immediate impeachment."

But as is the case with so much involving Trump, the "unthinkable" gets an inordinate amount of thinking. There is, in fact, a case for the president to issue a blanket #RussiaGate pardon, and the case is getting stronger, thanks to the irrational hatred of his opponents.

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

8:35 AM - Jun 4, 2018

On the question of whether Trump has self-pardoning power, the weight of opinion appears to be with Giuliani—He can, but he shouldn't. UCal-Berkley law professor and former legal adviser to the Geoge W. Bush administration John Yoo speaks for the vast majority of scholars when he points out the Constitution grants the president virtually unlimited pardon power in Article II of the Constitution. The Constitution says the president can"grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." That's it.

"President Trump can clearly pardon anyone — even himself — subject to the Mueller investigation," Professor Yoo writes.

Another former DOJ official, Andrew McCarthy, agrees with the legal consensus that a president can pardon himself, and goes even farther. He notes that Trump need not wait to be charged with a crime before issuing a pardon:

"After President Nixon resigned, President Ford pardoned him even though he had not been indicted. President Lincoln mass-pardoned Confederate soldiers and sympathizers, and President Carter mass-pardoned Vietnam draft evaders. Thus, the fact that special counsel Mueller has not, and may never, file criminal charges would not prevent President Trump from issuing pardons," McCarthy writes.

There are dissenters of course.  

But if this idea sounds crazy, it's actually been floating around since at least last October, when respected Republican attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey—who both served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations —floated it in the Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. Trump can end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion with Russia or Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, to anyone involved with Russian acquisition of an American uranium company during the Obama administration, and to anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller's office," they wrote. "Political weaponization of criminal law should give way to a politically accountable democratic process."

And this is the most powerful argument for the self-pardoning case: "a politically accountable democratic process."  

While cable news continues its obsession with the #RussiaGate story and every tweet, text or eyebrow-twitch related to it, President Trump and his allies have a strong and simple argument to make: They literally have more important things to do.  

And that is Trump's strongest argument in this entire debate.  Most Americans are focused on record jobs reports, and the possibility of a North Korea deal, and whether Trump's trade war will result in a negotiated settlement that benefits American workers or an economic fiasco that kills jobs and drives up prices.

Trump can argue that he's taking care of the people's business while his opponents are engaged in—as the POTUS loves to put it—a "partisan witch hunt."  He seems to have a point: In addition to the steadily-growing support for Trump even as the media's #RussiaGate mortar fire continues, a recent CBS poll found that a majority of Americans view the Mueller investigation as politically motivated.

Given the steady stream of new information about the FBI and DOJ's behavior during the 2016 campaign—including an inspector general's report expected to be highly critical of the pro-Clinton bias inside the agencies—public trust is likely to continue its decline.

In other words, we're looking at months of legal wrangling, political posturing and maniacal early-morning Trump tweeting, all to get to a Mueller report that many Americans will reject out of hand, whatever the final conclusions.  What's the point? Why shouldn't Trump issue a pardon today and move on with being president?

The real answer is that he doesn't need to.  As CBS News found in its latest poll, the GOP's position headed into the midterms is getting stronger. There's a slim-but-real chance the Democrats might not take the House, and the GOP has an excellent chance of adding to its majority in the U.S. Senate.

The "pardon and get past it" advice might have made sense last October when Trump and the GOP's prospects looked dismal. Today, Trump can keep sending his lawyers out to make the most extreme political case—a president can't commit obstruction, for example—while he gives speeches about peace abroad and prosperity at home.

J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ official and president of the conservative Public Interest Legal Foundation defends the president's power to oversee and—if necessary—end the #RussiaGate investigation this way:

"Hatred of Trump can lead to blindness about the Constitution. In this case, unhinged, unrestrained, unaccountable bureaucrats are the bigger threat to liberty. Don't like Trump firing Comey because he controls a unitary executive? Vote against him.  That's how the system works."

In a few months, the American people can elect a Congress to impeach Trump if they so choose. Two years from now, the American people can vote him out.  

Why isn't that good enough?

CBSN contributor Michael Graham is a conservative columnist for the Boston Herald.

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus articles

that is all articles This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.

You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/06/www_5.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: