Friday, April 07, 2017

Hartzler on Gorsuch confirmation: This is a great day

(From Fourth District Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R.-Mo.) issued the following statement following the Senate's confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court:

“This is a great day. The Senate has confirmed Judge Neil Gorsuch to be our next Supreme Court Associate Justice. Judge Gorsuch is a solid jurist with a track record of impartiality and standing for the rule of law. The Constitution is in good hands and the people will be, also, as he helps render just, sound decisions. I applaud President Trump for his outstanding nomination and the Senate for confirming him to our nation's highest court.”


Harvey Hutchinson said...

Also, after President Trump knocked Asaad on his ass as well!!
America is back! It's been a long 8 years going backwards

Harvey Hutchinson 303-522-6622 voice&text 24/7

Anonymous said...

Assad is already flying missions out of the Syrian airport that was bombed - at great expense, I might add. The mission was largely ineffective except to put American soldiers (advisors) in the region at risk. It is certainly desirable to let Assad know that the world will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons, but in order to do that it is necessary to inflict some real damage.

And then there the unanswered questions - unanswered I suspect because our president doesn't even realize that there are such questions. Will this strike lead to more involvement in the area - and possible war with Russia? Who knows? There doesn't seem to be any consistent policy in effect.

I am inclined to agree with those who suggest that the bombing was prompted by an impulse on the part of our impulsive, cable-watching president - who has shown no concern about Syrian children being killed or displaced heretofore - or that it amounts to nothing more than a cynical ploy to take the heat off the FBI investigation of Trump's possible collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election.

And then, of course, there are those who believe that any military action, no matter how rash should be applauded. So maybe it's a win for the Trump brand even though it may not be such a good thing for the country.

Anonymous said...

To address the more relevant part of the comment from Harvey Hutchinson, many of us would dispute his assertion that the confirmation of Gorsuch is a harbringer of good times come again as he seems to think. His confirmation merely rewarded the GOP for violating the norms that until now have more or less governed the appointment of judges - by which I mean the nine months of GOP obstruction that kept Merrick Garland, an accomplished centrist judge, off the Supreme Court.

And then there's the fact that Gorsuch will continue to deliver the goodies to the corporations that have been financing the GOP obstruction in the first place - because it isn't just guns-for-all and anti-abortion/religious "freedom" hysterics who love them some Gorsuch, but most potently those who cheer for the rights of corporations over everyday Americans. His predilection to rule in favor of those august corporate "persons," no matter how contorted the argument he has to make, are well-documented in his decisions to date- even though he tried to avoid answering any questions that might have been be too revelatory during the hearings.

Mr. Hutchinson thinks America has been going backwards over the last eight year - and insofar as the Obama administration was able to undo some of the damage of the Bush years, he may be right - but now, he'd better be prepared to forwards really fast - downhill all the way.

Harvey Hutchinson said...

Both you anonymous are as WRONG as you are anonymous !!
We've got the best President ever; following the worst.
And best of all, we dodged a terrible bullet in the lying, corrupt Hillary Clinton. Please lock her up along with her felonious perjurer husband.

As soon as Susan Rice sings some more, it will lead right to Valerie Garrett and Obama himself
Harvey Hutchinson 303-522-6622 voice&text 24/7

Anonymous said...

Harvey Hutchinson - evidence please. I suspect it'll be as hard to find as actual evidence of Susan Rice's alleged misbehavior - or as difficult as finding any real evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Hillary Clinton. P

Harvey Hutchinson said...

FBI Director read off a laundry list of Hillary 's lawbreaking activity, and then said ( under Loretta Lynche's orders; from the meeting in Phoenix the day before), not to prosecute her.
Bill Clinton, perjury; check the Western Federal District of Arkansas

Susan Rice is in the logs 12+ times asking for the transcripts of Trump and his associates, before the election, after, and prior to inauguration ( that's not a security issue)
Then as Dr. Fargas pointed out on the corrupt MSNBC, the next step was to get to Cingresd and Hillary for political gain

Harvey Hutchinson 303-522-6622 24/7

Open your eyes Anonymous 8:51

Anonymous said...

Hutchinson: I asked for evidence, not suppositions bandied about on conservative media. FBI director Comey did not bring charges against Hillary Clinton because, although he thought she was unwise in her handling of email, she had done nothing actionable - a point he made repeatedly as unequivocal and one which most legal authorities endorse. If you examine his actual findings, you will surely agree - there has never been a bigger nothing burger. (By the way, should Trump be investigated for his continuing use of an unsecured smartphone for several weeks after the transition? He used it for official business as well as the continuous tweeting and it was quite hackable.)

Bill Clinton's transgressions were several years ago, and not relevant to Susan Rice and her potential "singing." There are potential lessons for the Trump camp and their Russian entanglements in his story though - foremost among them is that coverups don't usually work - they just excite more interest.

As for Susan Rice, she had not only the legal right, but the obligation to ask that names in raw intelligence data be unmasked whenever she was concerned about the nature of the content.Other former AGs have also affirmed that this practice was common. It is not illegal, but a part of her duties to do so if the intelligence indicates questionable action.

The fact that the names Rice acquired were those of Trump campaign officials is especially interesting because it implies that the content of the conversations was such that it raised suspicions of possible illegal activity - a suspicion that is reinforced by numerous other recent disclosures. It isn't too smart for the Trump folks to try to milk this issue - It's already brought old "conflict of interest" Devin Nunes down.

That Rice "leaked" the names, a further silly charge I have heard bandied aboout, in order to help thwart the Trump folks is unlikely since they would already have been known to the security services who have been investigating Trump/Russia ties since last July at least. The only real leaker would have been Nunes and his bungled press confernce.