Generic welcome to the Good news round up not found. Error 404. Please contact your administrator.
Ah ha ha, we have fun here don’t we? Anyways onto the news.
Fox News host Pege Hegseth on Sunday came out on the losing side of an interview with Virginia candidate for U.S. House Dan Helmer (D).
In a Sunday interview on Fox & Friends, Hegseth confronted the Democrat about one of his campaign advertisements, which compares President Donald Trump to Osama bin Laden.
Hegseth began the interview by thanking Helmer, who served in Afghanistan, for his military service. But the pleasantries ended there.
“Obviously an ad like that gets noticed,” Hegseth opined. “We’re talking about it on the highest rated cable morning show in America. The question I have to you is, do you believe that Donald Trump is the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden?”
Helmer, however, seemed to have the perfect antidote to the Fox News style of interview.
“I actually believe on 9/11 — and my heart goes out to all that we lost that day and their families,” the candidate said. “I was a cadet at West Point and I knew I was going to be spending the next two years preparing to lead soldiers in combat. And I served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I did it for a simple reason, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic.”
Hegseth interrupted: “Are you saying [Trump] is an enemy?”
But Helmer talked over the Fox News host’s attempt to speak.
“I’nm saying that the oath that we took to defend the Constitution, I take seriously,” Helmer insisted. “This president doesn’t. And one of the reasons that I’m excited to be here on a show that I know that the president watches every morning is to make sure we deliver a message that change is coming, that no one, not even our president, is above the law.”
“Hold on,” Hegseth said, but Helmer kept talking.
“It’s time to make sure that we have a Congress that holds him accountable,” Helmer remarked. “I’m tired of people who think we need to wait and see about a president who has violated our constitution.”
Hegseth demanded to know how Trump had violated the Constitution.
“Let’s be clear,” Helmer said, refusing to let Hegseth finish his question. “The president has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, he has done actions that obstruct justice.”
“Wait,” the Fox News host pleaded.
“He has tampered with witnesses,” Helmer continued. “He has violated campaign finance laws. He has engaged in conduct unbecoming of a president.”
“A equals B,” Hegseth complained. “[You are saying] Donald Trump is a terrorist.”
Helmer, again, refused to let the Fox News host finish his sentence.
“The greatest threat to our democracy right now is a president who refuses to uphold his oath to abide by our Constitution and defend it,” Helmer stated.
Now THIS Is what I want to see out of my candidates. People who are clearly sick and tired of the rights bullshit and are not afraid to call them on it. I hope the Dems can field more guys like this for November.
California's state senate cleared a net neutrality measure Wednesday that supporters argue is needed to plug the gap they say will be left when the Federal Communications Commission's own rules prohibiting discriminating between internet traffic are taken offline next month.
Senate Bill 822 passed by a vote of 23-12. As it stands now, it looks like the law will pass, as both the State Assembly and Governor are Democrats.
To view the full article, register now. These deals would include agreements between ISPs and companies that provide internet content like Netflix and Hulu.
Specifically, SB 822 prohibits any practice that hinders or manipulates consumer access to the Internet to favor certain types of content, services, or devices over others. Today, EFF, representatives from groups across California, and other advocates for net neutrality are in Sacramento telling legislators not to bow to the will of large ISPs like AT&T and Comcast.
A Comcast spokeswoman said Tuesday the company would have no comment about SB 822, but pointed to Comcast's previous statements that it does not block, slow or discriminate against Internet content.
More Net Neutrality good news. As I’ve said, our best bet for fighting for Net Neutrality at the moment is the stat level. Hopefully more states will follow California’s lead.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said that he and other Senate Republicans are working on a plan to fight President Trump’s decision to no longer exempt U.S. allies from steep steel and aluminum tariffs.
Corker spoke out against the tariffs in a pair of tweets on Saturday, sharing pieces from The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post on the tariffs.
The Journal’s editorial board slammed Trump’s decision to remove exemptions for the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico from steep aluminum and steel tariffs. The Post story also focused on Trump’s tariffs, as well his order for the Energy Department to buy from struggling coal and nuclear plants to try and help the industry.
“These two stories feel like something I could have read in a local Caracas newspaper last week, not in America. Venezuela, here WE come!” the Republican tweeted.
"I am working with like-minded Republican senators on ways to push back on the president using authorities in ways never intended and that are damaging to our country and our allies,” Corker continued. “Will Democrats join us?"
And once again another glimpse of the GOP turning inward on itself. The Tariff thing may be one of those things that finally kills the base support for Trump, and the GOP knows it, so they are scrambling to try and fight back against it. Lets see how it works out for them, wont we?
And speaking of…
But Republican members of Congress during their Sunday show appearances expressed concern that a self-pardon would put the president in a compromising position.
"I think that would be a terrible move. I think people would erupt. I think even thinking about trying to fire Mueller is a bad move politically," Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CBS's "Face the Nation."
"So I hope we don't have to get to that point. And it's hard to predict what would happen, but that would create outrage on both sides of the political aisle."
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) echoed Hurd's concerns, but suggested that a self-pardon isn't necessarily on Trump's agenda.
"The president is not saying he is going to pardon himself," McCarthy told CNN's "State of the Union."
"I don't know why we're walking through hypotheticals here in this process. The president has never said he would pardon himself. I don't know where the president would go forward pardoning himself, but I don't think a president should pardon themselves," McCarthy added.
On ABC News Sunday, Giuliani affirmed that the president "has no intention of pardoning himself."
At this point I am having a hard time figuring which one is more embarrassing for the GOP: Trump of Giuliani. Maybe its being that red and living in a blue state does things to your brain (And as a resident of New York State, let me just apologize for both these jackasses. We’re really a great state I swear.)
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the ranking member the Intelligence Committee, got some grief from fellow Democrats for suggesting that nothing much would change with respect to the Russia investigation if Democrats take back the majority in November. He asserted that voters “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year.” He is right in this regard: The real action is now with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. It will be his report that will determine next steps regarding Trump and his various associates.
Democrats, however, will have much to do if they seize the majority in either the House or Senate because Republicans in the majority have ignored their constitutional obligations. This list of topics for open hearings should get them started:
- A full accounting of President Trump’s receipt of foreign emoluments to determine whether there has been a constitutional violation or even bribery. The same should be conducted for other “senior officials,” namely his daughter and son-in law.
- A thorough review of the deaths of American servicemen in Niger.
- Hearings on presidential war-making powers, including the executive branch’s claim to nearly unlimited military powers (revealed in a case that forced the administration to produce its justification) and any assertion that a first strike on North Korea or Iran could be authorized without a congressional vote. (To his credit, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, held one hearing; more are needed.)
- A deep dive into corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds at the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator Scott Pruitt.
- An examination of all contacts between the White House and the Justice Department with respect to specific enforcement and/or criminal matters.
- An investigation into Russian oligarchs’ investments in the United States, including — but by no means limited to — the president’s real estate properties.
- Robust oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, including the family-separation policy of this administration and its expulsion of those with temporary protected status.
- An inquiry into abuse of the intelligence oversight process by members of Congress (perhaps via ethics committees).
I would make that “What Democrats should investigate WHEN they regain power, but that’s just me.
Anywho, that’s it from me today. Have a good week all.