Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,521
Woo hoo!! And now less than $4.5k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much! God bless.

Posts by usnavy_cop_retired

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Senate Democrats reject GOP legislative fix to stop family separations

    06/19/2018 7:34:31 PM PDT · 41 of 49
    usnavy_cop_retired to goldstategop

    The whole reason for not wanting a congressional fix is a political desire to force President Trump to back off law and order enforcement so that they can claim that he does not really mean what he says. You know, “he’s mean, cold, racist, etc.” They need him to capitulate to the left’s meme.

  • Defendant Concord Oppositon to Special Counsel's Motion to Continue

    05/07/2018 12:10:31 AM PDT · 14 of 15
    usnavy_cop_retired to Basket_of_Deplorables

    Everyone appears to be missing the most important statement in this filing. They state that they want a speedy trial. To me that they want to force Mueller to start the trial immediately and that forces them to produce discovery evidence within a few weeks instead of the normal slow walking normally done by the Feds. Chances are that the defense will demand an expedited motion and discovery schedule which puts Mueller at a disadvantage.

  • Dems accuse the DOJ IG & the FBI OPR of collusion- with Trump

    03/17/2018 10:01:32 PM PDT · 50 of 50
    usnavy_cop_retired to HotHunt

    Unless the DOJ IG procedures are different from other IG’s, the department head, (at least), are given a draft of the report and allowed to agree/disagree with the findings and recommendations of needed policy changes. Then the IG will outline these in the final report before it is released. Not all IG reports are released to the public but all, (I believe), are provided to Congress.

    Thus, I am sure that Sessions, Wray and POTUS have seen the draft report.

  • DOJ and FBI Subjected Trump to Watergate Without the Break-in

    02/10/2018 8:08:26 PM PST · 19 of 20
    usnavy_cop_retired to Sasparilla

    I have not heard anyone connect the fact that Strohk said he was putting together talking points for Comey to brief POTUS of “everything we’re doing” and the fact that Comey testified that he only met in person with obama twice. Here is the relevant quote from the Daily Caller article at the time: “I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) — once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions.”

  • Trump's 'go-yuuuuge' 'in-their-face' DACA deal

    01/26/2018 5:37:03 PM PST · 49 of 68
    usnavy_cop_retired to Honest Nigerian

    The genius of this is really in the $25 Billion for the wall. It requires the money to placed in a trust fund for the wall which removes the potential for congress to fail to fund it in the future years. The 2006 border wall agreement was never funded which left us in the mess we are in now, (same thing happened in the 1986 immigration overhaul/amnesty).

  • Trey Gowdy Resigns as member of Ethics Committee

    01/12/2018 7:22:08 PM PST · 23 of 112
    usnavy_cop_retired to TianaHighrider

    Is it possible that he knows he is in the 1.2 million pages of documents that the DOJIG has started to release. Maybe he wants to be ahead of the calls for him to resign the committee chairmanship, (and possibly not run for re-election)?

  • Fusion GPS Admits They Used John McCain to Pass Anti-Trump Dossier to Obama-Era Intel Agencies

    01/10/2018 11:09:51 PM PST · 148 of 164
    usnavy_cop_retired to Texas Fossil

    This article makes a big thing about McCain being the go between. Why did Fusion need to have McCain put the dossier in the FBI’s hands? Fusion and Steele admit that they started giving it to the FBI in July so they had no need to have it given to the FBI. I think they saw that since Trump might/did win they needed a cover for the dossier bring provided to the FBI. They probably did not expect the fact that it was given to the FBI in July to come out.

  • LEGAL ANALYSIS: Why Mueller’s Seizure of Transition Emails Likely Violated the Law

    12/19/2017 1:18:47 AM PST · 34 of 43
    usnavy_cop_retired to AndyJackson

    You are correct as it pertains to the trial in the Senate, but the Dems don’t care about that. They want him impeached by the House which is not limited by future rulings by the Chief Justice during the trial. They just need to have enough “dirt” so that they can get the Rinos to agree to impeach. They likely want to do this just prior to the November elections in hopes to get enough Conservatives to vote for the Dems or stay home, (Judge Moore is a prime example).

  • LEGAL ANALYSIS: Why Mueller’s Seizure of Transition Emails Likely Violated the Law

    12/18/2017 8:27:13 PM PST · 26 of 43
    usnavy_cop_retired to Steely Tom

    I think that everyone is focusing on the wrong reason for the grabbing of these emails. This was not done for criminal investigation and Meuler doesn’t care if the courts rule that anything that results of this is the fruit of the poisonous tree. This was done for impeachment info which the Congress, Dems), can use for articles of Impeachment. They are looking for anything that can be the basis for an impeachment charge. Rules of evidence do not matter.

  • Fusion GPS Paid Top DOJ Official’s Wife To Dig Up Dirt On Trump

    12/14/2017 1:53:36 AM PST · 59 of 59
    usnavy_cop_retired to Paladin2

    Question? Was Bruce and Nellie Ohr in McCabe’s office when the “insurance” plan was plotted? We need to know who attended that meeting. We, already know that Page, (DOJ attorney at the time, August 2016), was in that meeting so it is not unreasonable to believe that other DOJ officials were part of the meeting cabal.

  • What is the DOJ up to

    12/02/2017 5:08:04 PM PST · 49 of 49
    usnavy_cop_retired to zeugma

    It’s a cert request and a reversal by the DOJ of their position. Initially the DOJ, (Obama), sided with the SEC, but the DOJ now is backing the Plaintiff’s view and requesting the USSC take the case.

  • What is the DOJ up to

    12/02/2017 5:29:09 AM PST · 15 of 49
    usnavy_cop_retired to Fhios

    I see this as an attempt by Sessions to rein in the out of control Agencies. Look at this as Sessions saying that if you are going to fine a “defendant” for XXX you must be using a “judge” that is appointed/confirmed by the Executive, not by the agency that is presenting the allegation of wrong doing.

  • What is the DOJ up to

    12/02/2017 5:07:13 AM PST · 9 of 49
    usnavy_cop_retired to mad_as_he$$

    I will attempt to reply to all. My opinion is that all ALJ’s currently are illegal/unconstitutional. They must be appointed by the Executive. The Agencies have been out of control for a long time and need to be reined in. My opinion only!!

  • What is the DOJ up to

    12/02/2017 4:40:59 AM PST · 1 of 49
  • Even before court victory, Trump’s pick to lead consumer watchdog began reshaping agency

    11/29/2017 5:18:03 AM PST · 16 of 18
    usnavy_cop_retired to catnipman

    If you have read the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion concerning “succession” issue you would notice that it was well written and researched, indicating that it was in the works for weeks/months. Trump and his team anticipated this move by Cordray and were ready for it. I believe that Cordray got word that upon his originally announced departure date that Mulvaney was going to be put in place and moved up his departure in order to attempt to stop Trump.

    Also notice that it took England 2 days to file her lawsuit, (in her personal capacity, not as the Director). That also tells me they were caught by surprise by Trump’s move.
    Also, the PHH decision, (110 pages), made it clear that the CFPB could not appoint its own successor. It made it clear that the President had the right and authority to fire/appoint the Director of the CFPB at will. That decision was put on hold while it is being appealed (which likely will now result in the appeal being withdrawn by Mulvaney).
    My understanding is that Mulvaney had his folks in place even before Trump made the announcement and locked down all computers. Emails etc.

    When folks say that Trump plays 3D chess I tend to agree. This move only reinforces that opinion.

  • Sebelius: The Clinton White House doubled down on 'abusive behavior' and it's fair to criticize...

    11/23/2017 2:16:06 AM PST · 43 of 44
    usnavy_cop_retired to EQAndyBuzz

    I think folks are missing the Dem strategy here.

    Why are they going after BJ Clinton now? I suspect that they have decided to sacrifice him in order to set up impeachment of Trump. They need it to be BJ Clinton that is now declared a total reprobate since he was “impeached”. This allows them to then demand that Trump be impeached once they bring out, (parade), several new sexual assault victims.

    Why are all of these high profile Dems now saying Clinton should have resigned 20 years later? To provide creds for the demand for impeachment if Trump refuses to resign or denies the “new” allegations?

    I don’t trust the Dems. They don’t “eat” their own unless it will get them something more important.

  • Why did Clinton/DNC need attorney-client privilege for Trump Dossier?

    10/27/2017 4:43:14 AM PDT · 15 of 15
    usnavy_cop_retired to Another Kansan

    Reading Grssley’s letter(7 Jun 2017) to Fusion I find this paragraph telling:

    “Regarding your claim of attorney work product privilege, your attorney has failed to explain how Fusion’s work was completed in anticipation of litigation. On a phone call with Committee staff, your attorney vaguely indicated that Fusion’s work was done in anticipation of the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Your attorney’s assertion lacked any detail necessary to properly consider its merit. Moreover, given the circumstances, it appears that Fusion’s work was conducted in anticipation of the presidential election, rather than in anticipation of any litigation—in which case the privilege does not apply.”

    That tells me that the dossier was produced specifically to give the FBI and IC a reason to go to the FISA for surveillance of Trump and his staff.

    Grassley’s letter

  • In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case

    10/11/2017 7:07:30 AM PDT · 60 of 71
    usnavy_cop_retired to NonValueAdded

    Welcome. The SC accepted and adopted the DOJ’s position on how to go forward on this case, (and the Hawaii decision coming up). After the Sept EO3 was released the SC asked all parties to file a letter giving their views on what the next step should be. The question was: is the case moot and what should the SC do if it is? The letters were filed on 5 Oct. The plaintiffs argued the cases weren’t moot but if the court thought they were that the SC should revoke the cert. but not dismiss the cases, (Sotomayer’s position). I’m glad the SC went along with the DOJ.

    BTW the revised complaint by Hawaii doesn’t have any parties that would have standing because no one has a visa request pending that has been denied under the new rules. (all are speculative not actual injuries. Hawaii is still using the “loss of revenue” issue for colleges and tourism as their supposed standing/injuries. All in all a good read if you want to see what grasping at straws is like.

  • In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case

    10/11/2017 3:49:46 AM PDT · 53 of 71
    usnavy_cop_retired to NonValueAdded

    The win is that the SC ordered the lower court, (4th circuit), to dismiss the case. That means that the findings and rulings are no longer valid and they must start new on the EO3 case. They can not amend the original case since is has been, (will be), dismissed.

    All 9 justices voted to dismiss as moot, however, Sotomeyer wanted to revoke the centiori but leave the lower cases intact. That would have allowed the Plaintiff’s to use the negative findings as a basis for their challenge to EO3.

    This now means that the district court hearing the EO3 cases will need to develop the facts during hearings and can’t use the previous findings as a starting point. Also, the issue of standing must be litigated for the new case/plaintiffs. The old plaintiffs are out because their visas have since been issued and the visa holder is in the US. Their facts no longer are valid since they do not have injuries to be argued.

    Starting from scratch means there have been “No finding of religious animus” etc. The prior plaintiff’s are gone and the facts argued prior are not valid. New facts are required, I.E. “my wife has been denied a visa” etc.

    The Hawaii case from the 9th circuit is still valid because the refugee issue was part of that case and the 120 days doesn’t expire until 24 Oct. Hawaii filed a revised complaint 10/10/17 adding the EO3 to their case. However, it is expected that the SC will also declare that original case moot and order it dismissed. At that time it is expected that the Hawaii court will have to also dismiss the new revised complaint with the original case and Hawaii would have to file a new complaint encompassing only the EO3 without the findings the court made in the EO1 and EO2 since that case is dismissed, (treated as having never existed).

    Sorry the above is lengthy. I’m trying to put it in layman terms.

  • Pelosi Statement Condemning Antifa Violence in Berkeley

    08/29/2017 8:56:55 PM PDT · 62 of 102
    usnavy_cop_retired to Interesting Times

    Both. The Antifa groups have gone beyond what the Dems/MSM wanted and they have now seen what the majority of normal Americans are repulsed by them. And they now see that Pres. Trump was absolutely correct to condemn both the far right and the far left,(Dem party/MSM).