Once was enough!

Can you guys find a good reason to keep him there?

We don't want him. :-)

We want to bundle Mr. Murdoch with him and make it a one way trip.

That's very cruel of you. What have we done to deserve such a visit.

Wouldn't it be better to send them in the other direction, Murdoch can go back home and they could either visit the floods with its crocs and snakes or Tasmania with its heat wave and forest fires and they can discus the reasons for the two events.

Soooooo...........the Dim Governor of Virginia is being vilified for allegedly wearing 'black face' in a College yearbook photo, and must resign.
Soooooo..........the Dim Lt. Governor of Virginia is accused of sexual assault and calls for his resignation precludes him from replacing the Governor.
Soooooo.........the Dim Attorney General of Virginia is also believe to have worn 'black face' in College and should disqualify himself from succession.
Soooooo........the next successor in line is the Virginia Speaker of the House..................a Republican..................I love it when a plan comes together.

LOL:)
That's called whataboutism.
But what about Trump since it's he who now is the president of the US?

Democrats launch new probe of Trump’s finances, Russia ties

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House intelligence committee will launch a broad new investigation looking at Russian interference in the 2016 election and President Donald Trump’s foreign financial interests, Chairman Adam Schiff announced Wednesday, moving ahead with the aggressive oversight that Democrats have promised now that they are in the majority.
Schiff said the investigation will include “the scope and scale” of Russian intervention in the 2016 presidential election, the “extent of any links and/or coordination” between Russians and Trump’s associates, whether foreign actors have sought to hold leverage over Trump or his family and associates, and whether anyone has sought to obstruct any of the relevant investigations.
The announcement came one day after Trump criticized “ridiculous partisan investigations” in his State of the Union speech. Schiff dismissed those comments Wednesday.

Trump call Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russia ties a Witch Hunt.
In Russia they have witches to cast spells in support of Putin.
https://www.rt.com/russia/450823-witches-circle-putin-russia/

Democrats just called Trump's 'investigations' bluff

"If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation," Trump said, to murmurs of disapproval from many Democrats in the House chamber.

The message was simple: If you like the current run of economic prosperity and (relative) peace in the world, then you had better end the special counsel investigation being run by Robert Mueller and stop before you start any congressional investigations. If you don't, bad -- if amorphous -- things will happen to the country.

That threat didn't hold for 12 hours. By Wednesday morning, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (California) announced he was launching a wide-ranging inquiry into Trump's finances and whether financial considerations were driving decisions made by the administration.

The investigation will "allow us to investigate any credible allegation that financial interests or other interests are driving decision-making of the President or anyone in the administration," explained Schiff.

Also on Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (New York) forewarned acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker that he would be expected to answer questions -- and not simply cite executive privilege -- in a hearing scheduled for this Friday. Nadler has gone so far as to issue a subpoena to compel Whitaker to testify in the event the acting AG chooses not to answer questions Friday.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/donald-trump-investigation-adam-schiff-jerry-nadler/index.html

Trump furious after Schiff hires former NSC aides to help oversee his administration

Washington House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has hired officials with experience at the National Security Council to help with its oversight of President Donald Trump's administration, according to a committee aide. The aide declined to say how recently the newly hired officials worked at the council, whether they served under Trump or to identify the individuals. But the move appears to have enraged the President and some members of his senior staff, who view the move as an intrusion. It comes as Democrats prepare to wield new investigative power after winning a House majority in 2018.
Trump fumed on Twitter Thursday about the recently launched investigations led by the Democratic intelligence chair and suggested he was raiding the White House staff.

The Republicans never did this to President Obama...

But then Obama was never known for dirty dealing while Trump has a very long history of doing so. ;-)

The acting attorney general says he won't testify unless Democrats drop their threat subpoena him.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday that he would not appear before the panel as planned on Friday unless Chairman Jerry Nadler drops his subpoena threat. Whitaker's statement comes after the committee authorized Nadler (D-N.Y.) to subpoena the acting attorney general if he does not answer certain questions about his role overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe during Friday's highly anticipated hearing.

Cheers,
Brothers and Sisters
… byron.

The Republicans never did this to President Obama...

President Obama was never suspected of being a foreign agent working to overthrow the government.

The Republicans never did this to President Obama...

President Obama was never suspected of being a foreign agent working to overthrow the government.

Except by the 'birthers'.

Biggest fan of Trump’s State of the Union? Russians.

tsk tsk tsk, AG doesn't want to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ...

Nadler had said the threat of subpoena was necessary to ensure that Whitaker appeared and did not invoke executive privilege to decline answering certain questions.

Whitaker responded by saying that he would not testify unless Democrats withdrew the subpoena threat.

“When we invite officials to testify before this committee, they have to appear. When we ask them questions, they have to provide us with answers, or provide us with a valid and clearly articulated reason to withhold certain information,” Nadler said earlier Thursday.

“Without the threat of a subpoena, I believe it may be difficult to hold Mr. Whitaker to this standard,” he added.

So now we have to negotiate the lies to be told ...

“If you appear before the Committee tomorrow morning and if you are prepared to respond to questions from our Members, then I assure you that there will be no need for the Committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter to Whitaker on Thursday evening.

Isn't the AG the top LAW ENFORCEMENT person? What is the new standard for a LAW ENFORCEMENT person these days? Some of the truth when it is convenient? Like "he was reaching for his waist band."

Soooooo...........the Dim Governor of Virginia is being vilified for allegedly wearing 'black face' in a College yearbook photo, and must resign.

Soooooo..........the Dim Lt. Governor of Virginia is accused of sexual assault and calls for his resignation precludes him from replacing the Governor.

Soooooo.........the Dim Attorney General of Virginia is also believe to have worn 'black face' in College and should disqualify himself from succession.

Soooooo........the next successor in line is the Virginia Speaker of the House..................a Republican..................I love it when a plan comes together.

The Democrats remove racists and predators from their midst, while the Republicans double down to protect those lifeforms.

Are you really coming here to brag about that? You do nothing to disolve the belief that repubs are nothing but a collection of opportunists with grand senses of entitlement.
That's a sad commentary on your chosen political party and positions.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Democrats remove racists and predators from their midst, while the Republicans double down to protect those lifeforms.

That is the way Eye rolls.

---

Jim Crow 2.0

Republicans Have a Secret Weapon in the Midterms: Voter Suppression

“If you fail to vote for two elections, you’re sent a notice, and if you don’t answer the notice, you’re purged from the rolls.”

“In 1896, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the limitations on voting were intended ‘to obstruct the exercise of suffrage by the negro race.”

that is still happing in 2019

The Supreme the USA Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act.

After losing in 2012, the GOP enacted the harshest limits on voting since Jim Crow. It could make the difference this year from Florida to North Dakota.

voters will be confronted by a byzantine array of voter restrictions, voter-suppression efforts, and voter discrimination standing in their way. A review by The Daily Beast found at least five voter-suppression practices in active use today. All are led by Republicans, all have disproportionate effects on non-white populations, and all are rationalized by bogus claims of voter fraud. They include:

•Closing polling places in communities of color
•Purging eligible voters from the rolls without their knowledge
•Barring felons from voting
•Voter ID laws
•Eliminating early voting

Each one of these alone is troubling. In the aggregate, though, they paint an unmistakable picture of Republican efforts to hold on to power in an increasingly non-white nation by making it harder for non-white people to vote.

Closing polling places

The simplest way to stop people from voting is to make it harder for them to vote, and the easiest way to do that is to close polling places. And since 2013, more than 1,000 polling places have been closed in nine Republican-dominated states alone.

The Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act. What Happened Next in These 8 States Will Not Shock You.
When his court weakened the civil-rights-era law last year, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that ”our country has changed.” We crunched the numbers. He was wrong.

When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn a key section of the Voting Rights Act last June, Justice Ruth Ginsburg warned that getting rid of the measure was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” The 1965 law required that lawmakers in states with a history of discriminating against minority voters get federal permission before changing voting rules. Now that the Supreme Court has invalidated this requirement, GOP lawmakers across the United States are running buck wild with new voting restrictions.

Before the Shelby County v. Holder decision came down on June 25, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required federal review of new voting rules in 15 states, most of them in the South. (In a few of these states, only specific counties or townships were covered.) Chief Justice John Roberts voted to gut the Voting Rights Act on the basis that “our country has changed,”and that blanket federal protection wasn’t needed to stop discrimination. But the country hasn’t changed as much as he may think.

Jim Crow 2.0 Republicans Have a Secret Weapon in the Midterms: Voter Suppression

Cheers,
Brothers and Sisters,

The Democrats remove racists and predators from their midst, while the Republicans double down to protect those lifeforms.

That is the way Eye rolls.

And you should've seen the beauty he posted the other day that got slapped down by a few of us immediately. ;-)

Sadly it all got hidden instead of being moved to that "other thread".

Cheers.

Barring felons from voting

This has also had the side of effect of disenfranchising plenty of non-felons as well who (were claimed to) have names similar to actual felons.

---

‘My whole town practically lived there’: From Costa Rica to New Jersey, a pipeline of illegal workers for Trump goes back years

Illegals have been building and maintaining Trump properties since 2002 at least, many from the same town in Costa Rica. This had to be organised. The Trump organisation has been notified by the Police 2011 police report shows Trump Bedminster head of security was told of worker’s possibly false documents

Should be about now that the properties are raided and the owner locked up.

Ivanka Trump has 'zero concern' about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ivanka-trump-concern-special-counsel-robert-muellers-investigation/story?id=60926680
https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1093852825401085953

Ivanka: "It’s not like it’s a strange thing...to have a hotel or a property in Russia. We’re not talking about Iran. It was Russia.”
Well, in Azerbajdzjan she tried to build a hotel together with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Father like daughter...

‘My whole town practically lived there’: From Costa Rica to New Jersey, a pipeline of illegal workers for Trump goes back years

Illegals have been building and maintaining Trump properties since 2002 at least, many from the same town in Costa Rica. This had to be organised. The Trump organisation has been notified by the Police 2011 police report shows Trump Bedminster head of security was told of worker’s possibly false documents

Should be about now that the properties are raided and the owner locked up.

Seems like he agreed when he was campaigning, Trump once advocated a ‘huge financial penalty’ for those employing undocumented immigrants

This issue came up during the campaign, too, on several occasions. As with so many other controversies that Trump faced during 2016, the question of his employing undocumented immigrants — as when The Post talked to people building his hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington — was quickly washed away by some other newer or bigger controversy. But when it came up, it prompted Trump to assert repeatedly that he was doing something he clearly wasn’t: Screening his employees to make sure they could work legally in the United States.

At one point, in fact, he suggested that those who employ immigrants in the country illegally should face “a huge financial penalty” — or that it “could be beyond a financial penalty.”