The Trumpster Started An Impeachment War With Congress

Rudy Giuliani is the confused, but cunning former 911 hero and mayor of New York. Rudy turned in all his good deeds when Trump asked him to be his legal double-talker while he chokes the constitution with his mobster moves, according to the New York Times.

Mayor Rudy is now some sort of comic legal hero who likes to talk about legal issues, but he never seems to hit any legal nails on the head. Rudy claims he was constitutional law standout in law school and that’s why he’s able to defend the Trumpster as the president chaotically drills holes in the foundation of America’s democracy. Trump’s democracy is the rule of one with yes man carrying his McDonald’s bag while he cheats at golf.

Trump’s democracy is a nationalistic con game that spits tariff snake oil over America’s allies and makes deals with dictators who live by their own quid pro quo. Sanctions and tariffs are Trump’s weapons of war, and they take no prisoners.

Americans financially support Trump’s tariff war with China and the upcoming tariff war with the European Union. Trump’s democracy punishes the people while he makes business deals around the world, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, Bill Barr, and Mike Pence approve of Trump’s democracy. Mike Pompeo’s neck is in a legal noose. Pompeo told Schiff to go fish instead of turning over Ukraine documents and allowing state department officials to testify. Mike might have an impeachment inquiry in his future unless he gets the Trump snake oil out of his system.

Attorney General Bill Barr is in Italy chasing the ghosts Trump invented to dispute the Mueller investigation. Bill is also blocking information Schiff and other committee chairman need for the inquiry. Several Department of Justice officials claim Bill is a cranky old Trump-lover who hates Democrats, the government, and telling the truth, according to the New York Times.

Mr. Trump declared an impeachment war with Pelosi, Schiff, and the people of America. That means important legislation will sit in the partisan swamp until after the 2020 election, according to political analysts.

Bill Barr plans to defend Trump’s democracy instead of America’s democracy during the war. And Pompeo, and Pence, as well as other Trumpians, will continue to beat his snake oil drum.

America’s system of government is on trial. The Trumpster thinks he’ll win that battle now that most supreme court judges are Trumpians.

Courts Rule Against Some Trump Immigration Policies.

Over the course of the last few months, the Trump administration has enacted a number of policies that would allow the government to rapidly deport some immigrants and to indefinitely hold in detention some others. These proposals have been quite controversial in some quarters, and the Trump administration policies have been challenged in the court system.

This week, two of the Trump administration’s immigration policies have been put on hold. In the first of the decisions, a group called WeCount! asked the federal court to place a hold on a Trump administration proposal that would have allowed the government to deport undocumented immigrants without first seeking court approval unless the immigrants could prove that they have resided in the United States for two years or more.

Judge Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia placed a temporary halt to the Trump administration policy. As a result of this ruling, the Department of Homeland Security will not be allowed to conduct expedited deportations until a full set of hearings can be conducted in federal court.

Trump administration officials reacted angrily to the judge’s decision. The Justice Department stated that it believed that the judge had exceeded her constitutional authority in the matter.

This isn’t the only setback that the Trump Administration’s immigration policy faced last week. A federal judge in the state of California made a ruling on a case. That judge called a halt to a policy that proposed keeping immigrant families in continuous detention. In that case, the judge said that keeping families in indefinite detention was in violation of a legal settlement that took place many years ago. In that settlement, US officials were forbidden to hold immigrant children in custody for an extended period of time.

The two rulings by these judges is not the end of the matter. Both of these cases will continue to make their way through the court system. Ultimately, both will most likely be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Appeals Court Rules On Medication-Induced Suicide

Those who have taken out a life insurance policy know that there are exclusions in the policy that will allow the insurance company to withhold payment to the beneficiary upon the death of the insured. One of the these exclusions is if the insured commits suicide. This past week, the Third District Court of Appeals ruled on a case involving what the plaintiff referred to as medication-induced suicide.

A woman purchased two life insurance policies. These policies both stated that the company would only refund the premium to the beneficiary if the insured died by suicide within the first two years that the policies were in force.

The woman who purchased these policies was feeling slightly depressed. She went to her physician seeking assistance for the problem, and she was prescribed some medication. Over the course of a few weeks, the woman was prescribed higher doses of antidepressants. About two months after the higher doses of antidepressants were prescribed, the woman who bought the policies committed suicide.

The beneficiary of the policies took the insurance company to court when the company refused to pay out the full amount of the policies. The insurance company stated that they were within their rights not to pay out because the insured committed suicide.

The beneficiary made the case to the court that there should be an exemption to the suicide exclusion in this case because the policyholder took her life due to being placed on certain medications. The beneficiary claimed that the insured had not truly intended to commit suicide.

The case was heard in federal district court at the insurer’s request. The district court ruled in favor of the insurance company.

The beneficiary appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals. The justices on the court ruled that the policyholder’s actions leading up to her taking her own life proved that she was knowledgeable about the action she was choosing. She was not acting in a way that was out of her control. The Third District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company dismissing the medication-induced suicide argument.

There is no word yet on if the plaintiff will appeal to a higher court.

Read More:

Department Of Justice Launches Antitrust Investigation Against California and Quartet Of Automakers

An investigation is underway by the United States Department of Justice to determine if an agreement between California and four automakers to implement state standards for emissions is a violation of federal antitrust laws.

Makan Delrahim, the chief of the anti-trust division mailed letters to each of the lawmakers in question on August 28 that explained their agreement with California was being reviewed for possible violations. The companies were also informed that no decision had yet been made in the matter.

The announcement comes at a time when the Trump administration has doubled down on attempts to eliminate controls the previous administration established for emissions standards. According to CNBC, the current investigation by the DOJ is also seen as a precursor to the prolonged legal battle with California over the state’s role in setting its own emissions standards.

The companies in question, Volkswagon AG, BMW AG, Honda Motor Co., and Ford Motor Co. reported the deal they struck with California allowed them to adopt lower standards than were necessary under the rules established by Obama. However, these standards were higher than what is mandated by the Trump administration.

The automakers were acting in direct defiance of an attempt by Trump and his administration to take away the right of California to set their own emissions standards to fight climate change. The automakers fear the effects of a longterm legal battle over the matter and want to avoid a patchwork of requirements that differ from state to state.

The Department of Justice offered no comment on Friday. It is expected that officials with the DOJ will soon meet with the four automakers at the center of the conflict to gather more information about their agreement with California.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker for the House of Representatives, characterized the investigation as a sham on the part of the Justice Department and urged the department to turn their attention to enforcing antitrust laws where violations actually exist.

One government official who is in favor of the DOJ actions says that California has enlisted the help of a group of irresponsible automakers to help the state push failed initiatives on the rest of America.

It is expected that the final approval necessary to roll back the standards set by the Obama administration will take place in the coming weeks. This will also eliminate the ability of states like California to set their own emissions standards unless a court later decides otherwise.

Man Can Face Jail Time For Pretending To Be A Lawyer

Kenneth Frank has pretended to be a lawyer for the past three years. He has helped people with real estate cases, eviction cases and foreclosure cases. Kenneth, who is 56-years-old, is now facing 16 felony charges. He can spend up to 11 years in prison.

In a report by Miami Herald, court documents showed that Kenneth brought in $20,000 from July 5, 2012 to January 2, 2015. Investigators stated that he pretended to be a lawyer even though he was not licensed by the Florida Bar Association. He also helped a client file a $1 million lien against someone. Additionally, he helped another person file a retaliatory claim.

This is not the first time that Kenneth has had a run-in with the law. He was charged with insurance fraud in 1996. In 2003, he was charged with grand larceny. He spent 18 months in prison as the result of this. He also had drug charges in 2004.

Kenneth has a lawyer named David Wheeler. David stated that his client never said that he was a lawyer. He also said that Kenneth was acting as a business person. Additionally, he stated that clients were aware of the fact that Kenneth was not a lawyer. News reporters have reached out to David, but he has not returned phone calls. David stated that he wants the court to order Kenneth to pay fines instead of sentencing him to prison.

Michael Satz is an attorney who works in Broward County. He stated that this is an example of white collar crime. He also has some advice that will help keep people from being scammed. He stated that if you need an attorney, then it is a good idea to make sure that they are licensed. You should also make that the attorney is in good standing with the Bar Association in your area.

Turns Out That The EPA’s Decision To Open Up Alaska Mine Was Influenced Directly By President Trump

One duty of governments around the world is to keep their societies’ natural resources, wildlife, and the environment in good shape. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency does just this.

Federal government agencies in the United States such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are operated independently of the President, though that isn’t to say that United States President Donald J. Trump is unable to influence such organizations.

Just yesterday, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2019, unnamed sources working for the EPA shared with popular news agency CNN that Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy told the state’s in-house staff of scientists that mining for both copper and gold at Pebble Mine would once again be legally allowed.

What’s most noteworthy about this move is that U.S. President Donald Trump met with Gov. Dunleavy only one day before changing the EPA’s policy not to mine there due to inflicting imminent danger on several fish species that call the nearby Bristol Bay home.

The Environmental Protection Agency made the decision public some two weeks ago, on July 30, 2019, though the aforementioned staff sources had learned of the EPA’s ruling more than a month ahead of time. This decision came one day after Governor Mike Dunleavy met with President Trump on Air Force One, the President’s personal vehicle for air travel, on June 26. Dunleavy actually didn’t fly on the aircraft when Trump met with him; rather, the two simply had a private discussion on a government aerial facility’s tarmac.

Trump was on his way to the annual G20 summit, which was being held in Tokyo, Japan, led by this year’s Chairman of the G20 summit, Shinzo Abe, who doubles as the Prime Minister of the Land of the Rising Sun – Tokyo.
People who work for the Environmental Protection Agency, according to CNN, are entirely confident that the close proximity between when Trump talked to Mike Dunleavy and when the Alaska Governor handed Trump’s decision down to the proper authorities within The Land of the Midnight Sun’s staff.

The four sources within the Environmental Protection Agency who spoke to CNN held the consensus that the decision that Trump directly handed down to the EPA and Gov. Mike Dunleavy did not match up with the Clean Water Act’s provisions, which outline – among other things – that government scientists like those mentioned above must be consulted as part of the decision-making process.

Gun Manufacturer Remington Pleads for Sandy Hook Lawsuit To Be Blocked

Gun manufacturer Remington Outdoor Company made its case to the Supreme Court recently after the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a wrongful death lawsuit in a narrow 4-3 decision. The lawsuit centers around the wrongful deaths of the schoolchildren who lost their lives in 2012 because of the mass shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary using an AR-15.

The AR-15 used by the Sandy Hook shooter was the Remington AR-15 Bushmaster rifle. Remington is now making its plea to the Supreme Court following a wrongful death lawsuit brought by family members of nine of those schoolchildren who lost their lives and one survivor of the horrific school shooting. Remington will most likely be arguing its case in front of the Supreme Court soon in light of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision. The Sandy Hook shooting massacre occurred in Newton, Connecticut.

Remington is mounting a fairly predictable legal defense in order to stave off any liability related to the school shooting. Per a piece of 2005 federal legislation known a the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers have received almost complete immunity from criminal liability vis-a-vis the guns that are ultimately used in these kinds of school shootings. In fact, the law provides broad coverage for gun manufacturers.

Remington has seized on the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in arguing its case, and a spokesman for Remington said that the case under consideration is a classic example of what lawmakers crafting the 2005 gun-rights legislation envisioned. Remington is clearly adamant against opening the floodgates to other lawsuits that might follow from this current wrongful death one should the case that their making with the Supreme Court be seen as unconvincing.

Remington’s concerns aren’t completely groundless either since before the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was ushered in as law, gun manufacturers were constantly fending off lawsuits from survivors of gun violence. Legal experts point out that both sides have credible arguments and that the victims should at least be given their day in court, so to speak, by having the chance to argue the merits of their case in front of the Supreme Court.

This particular wrongful death case, though, is taking its time to wend through the court system since the surviving family members originally filed the case back in 2014 against Remington and the gun shop that sold the weapon.

Chairman Nadler Sounds the Alarm for Impeachment on State of the Union

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler aired his frustration recently when he said that he saw no viable time frame for impeachment. By saying that, Chairman Nadler meant that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems less enthused than he does about beginning impeachment proceedings. Moreover, Chairman Nadler worries that in a few months all of the oxygen and media bandwidth will go towards covering the presidential race rather than exploring the possibility of high crimes and misdemeanors via opening impeachment proceedings in the House. There’s certainly an internal fight going on right now with Democrats.

In Chairman Nadler’s opinion, the Constitution needs to be defended no matter who occupies the White House. Illegal deeds should be punished, the thinking among Democrats goes, and no one should be above the law. On CNN’s Sunday talk show State of the Union, Jerrold Nadler said that, “we [the Congress] have to defend the Constitution against these kinds of unconstitutional and illegal deeds.” The Constitution makes the Congress the last check on executive power, and perhaps the only check on executive power thanks to the 1970s DOJ policy that frowns on criminal indictments vis-a-vis a sitting president.

The trouble is that the president, no matter which party s/he comes from, is effectively above the law if the Senate fails to bring forward 67 votes to convict the president once articles of impeachment leave the House and move through a Senate trial. In other words, fewer than 67 senators willing to convict the president for high crimes and misdemeanors drawn up by the House coupled with the 1970s DOJ policy memo that says the president cannot be criminally indicted, or even considered for such, effectively puts the president above the law. Both Chairman Nadler and ethical attorneys from around the country are disturbed by this development.

On Sunday’s State of the Union, Chairman Nadler added that impeachment is necessary so that the kind of behavior that President Trump is displaying (e.g., possible obstruction of justice and a blatant disregard for the Constitution’s emoluments clause) will not be normalized as a ready-made template for future presidents to follow. Chairman Nadler stressed the importance of opening impeachment proceedings immediately so that articles can get drafted as soon as possible and increased oversight can occur in the House. Cynics would argue that Chairman Nadler’s newfound enthusiasm for impeachment has more to do with an upcoming, left-leaning House primary contest.

Trump Scores Legal Victory In Battle To Build Border Wall

The United States Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump on Friday and ruled the president would be allowed to use $2.5 billion in funds to build his coveted wall along the border the United States shares with Mexico.

The use of the funds was blocked previously by a federal judge in California who ruled the money was approved for the Pentagon by Congress to use for defense spending. The California judge said the president was attempting to circumvent the political process by diverting the funds to build his wall.

The supreme court vote was five to four in favor of blocking the ruling by the judge in California.

Trump took to Twitter just after the ruling from the Supreme Court became known. Trump celebrated the victory with his Twitter followers and expressed joy that his plans to build the wall can now move forward.

In a brief that accompanied the court’s decision, it was explained that the favorable decision for the Trump Administration was due to a finding that the groups that challenged the decision to use the funds to build the wall did not have grounds for a lawsuit.

Gloria Smith is an attorney working for the Sierra Club, an environmental group that was part of the lawsuit. Smith says the decision by the Supreme Court is a tragic one that will isolate and destroy communities in New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Trump made the unprecedented move on February 15 of declaring a national emergency in order to obtain funding for the wall without the approval of Congress. Democrats complained that the president’s actions exceeded the Executive power given to him.

The Administration announced plans to divert a total of $6.7 billion to fund the wall. The $2.5 billion is money that was originally allotted to the Pentagon. An earlier attempt by the president to obtain $5.7 billion in funding was denied by Congress and resulted in a government shutdown that lasted for more than a month.

The Administration urged the Supreme Court to act quickly because the fiscal year ends in September and the money for the project needed to be available by that time.

The building of the wall is a large part of the get-tough policy regarding immigration the president campaigned on during the 2016 elections. The president is expected to lean heavily on the same policies next year in his bid for a second term in office.

Read More:

The Supreme Court Gives Trump The Ok To Use Pentagon Funds To Build His Border Wall

The president put the city of Baltimore on notice. According to Mr. Trump, Baltimore is the filthy rat and rodent-infested underbelly of the United States. Trump claims Representative Elijah Cummings is a slacker who couldn’t care less about the people in his Maryland district.

Mr. Trump attacked Congressman Cummings, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, for verbally thrashing the border agents who sat before his committee. The head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, told Cummings his department did their best to make immigrants comfortable while they wait for processing in unsanitary detention centers. Cummings let McAleenan know children sitting in their feces while border guards treat them like wild animals is not what he calls humane treatment.

House Speaker Pelosi told the press Trump is a racist after he attacked Cummings. Cummings and his committee also want to talk to Ivanka and Jared about using their private emails to conduct government business. The Oversight Committee plans to subpoena the president two special advisors, but Cummings expects Trump to block the subpoena’s, according to the Washington Post.

Kellyanne Conway, another Trump advisor, told the press Robert Mueller is feeble. Conway said Mueller didn’t know what he wrote in his report. Several Republicans claimed Mueller didn’t write the report. Mueller’s testimony in front of Congress didn’t give the Democrats what they wanted in terms of a “smoking gun” to start impeachment proceedings. But Mueller’s testimony let the American people know Trump willingly cooperated with Russian operatives in order to win the 2016 election.

Mr. Mueller told Congress Russia is in the process of repeating their 2016 election influencing performance. But the day after Mueller made that statement Senate Speaker Mitch McConnell stopped two Congressional bills that would help the states stop Russian election interference in 2020. Mitch knows Trump thinks he won the election without Russia’s help. McConnell also told the press the states are capable of stopping the Russians hackers without federal help.

In a recent report by AP News, the Trumpster scored a win when his Supreme Court nominees and three other conservative justices let Trump’s lawyers know Trump can use the $2.5 billion he wants to steal from the military to build a border wall monument in his honor. The 5-4 unsigned decision claims the private groups suing Trump are not the proper plaintiffs. Trump called the Supreme Court ruling a win in his battle to make America white again.

Trump Wants To Push A Non-Existent Healthcare Plan If He Wins The Affordable Health Care Lawsuit

Some news reports say Donald Trump is the legal profession’s best friend. Mr. Trump likes to fight in the courts. When Trump sees a defeat of any kind brewing, or if Congress wants to know more about his finances, Trump sues to protect his privacy. When Congress finds wrongdoing in the Trump White House, Trump blocks its attempt to find out what he’s really up to with lawsuits and executive orders.

Mr. Trump doesn’t win all his lawsuits, but he creates enough chaos and distractions to claim a win even when he loses. The Census citizenship question is a good example of how Trump turns a court defeat into a win, according to the Washington Post.

Trump won another lawsuit when an appeals court ruled Trump ownership in Trump Tower properties in Washington and New York doesn’t violate the law that says you can’t profit from a business or accept money from foreign governments if you are president. According to the Washington Post, Trump profits when foreign government officials stay at his hotels.

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s special advisor, violates the Hatch Act every time she campaigns for Trump during her news conferences. Mr. Trump claims she has a right to campaign for him while she does government business. The president claims the First Amendment gives Conway the right to say whatever she wants while she does government business.

There are several lawsuits in the courts right now that will determine whether Congress can see Trump’s federal tax returns and his financial records. According to Congressman Adam Schiff, Trump may be part of a money-laundering scheme. Schiff wants Deutsche Bank to give him Trump’s financial records, but the president blocked Schiff’s request with a lawsuit.

The other case that may upend healthcare coverage for more than 20 million American’s is Trump’s lawsuit to throw the Affordable Healthcare Act out. Trump wants to develop a new healthcare plan that doesn’t have Obama’s name attached to it.

Trump told the press his new healthcare plan would help millions of Americans. But according to several Republican senators, he doesn’t have a plan.

Lawsuits give Trump power even when he doesn’t win. He keeps appealing and hoping all his legal battles reach the Supreme Court. He thinks the Supreme Court justices he nominated will have his back and rule in his favor.

Read More:

President Trump Says Crackdown On Illegal Immigrants Starts Now

United States President Donald Trump announced on Friday that a concerted effort to arrest immigrants previously ordered to leave the country will begin over the current weekend. The president explained that the plan he devised to discourage the current influx of illegal aliens into the country will move forward now after weeks of delay.

The raids will be conducted in ten U.S. cities and will target members of hundreds of immigrant families who have not abided by orders of deportation.

Trump made the unusual move of announcing the deportation plans on Twitter about a month ago. The plan met resistance from Democrats and immigrant rights groups and the president agreed to postpone the operation in hopes a compromise could be reached.

Trump told a group of reporters that the ‘major operation’ would concentrate on deporting criminals from the country. Trump explains the targets entered America illegally and would now be sent home by legal means.

Government data shows that thousands of illegal immigrant arrests are made on a weekly basis by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. For the most part, these arrests are not announced in advance and receive no media publicity.

The president expressed no concern that the advanced notice he has given illegal immigrants will help them to escape being arrested.

A number of mayors in targeted cities have repeated past promises to not aid ICE in their efforts to deport residents. Some cities have even established hotlines immigrant families can call to gain information pertaining to their rights.

Democratic lawmakers have publicly instructed immigrant families to ignore knocks on the door from ICE unless a search warrant is displayed. Immigrants were also told to not answer any questions or sign any documents unless a lawyer is present.

President Trump has made immigration issues a centerpiece for both his administration and his bid to gain reelection in 2020. The Administration has taken a series of measures to address the overflow of Central American natives approaching the United States border in search of asylum.

The arrests planned by the Administration comes after much criticism has been aimed at the President because of the conditions in which current immigration detainees live. Many groups have also been upset by the fact some immigrant children have been separated from their families.

Democrats expressed concern during hearings on Friday that the plan of action desired by the president would result in more children and families being separated.

Trump Administration Birth Control Exemptions Blocked By Federal Appeals Court

A federal appeals court decided on Friday to block President Trump and his administration from taking advantage of new rules that would exempt an Obama-care requirement that they provide female employees coverage for birth control under their health care plans.

The 3rd United Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the decision of a lower court to block employers with moral or religious objections from becoming exempt from healthcare requirement laws of 2010.

The three-judge panel, seated in Philadelphia, agreed with attorney generals from the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the opinion that rules set forth by the Health and Labor Departments are problematic.

The lawsuit was just one of a series of lawsuits filed by attorney generals across the country that challenge the ability to target an Affordable Care Act requirement. The Act is the signature accomplishment for former Democratic President Barack Obama.

The Obama Care mandate concerning contraceptive requires employers to provide an insurance plan that allows employees to receive birth control without a charge for co-payments.

Josh Shapiro, the attorney general of Pennsylvania, applauds the decision and says it will go along way to protect the contraceptive rights of women.

The Trump Administration has reported on its own that 126,400 women across the nation would lose their contraceptive care if the rule were enforced.

Justice Department Spokeswoman Kelly Laco says the decision is a disappointment to the department. Laco expressed the belief that religious individuals and organizations should not be forced to act against their own belief system.

In a report by Reuters, the Friday ruling upheld a January ruling by a Philadelphia federal judge. A similar ruling by a judge in California blocked enforcement of the rule in14 states across the nation and the District of Columbia.

Judge Patty Schwartz penned the judgment for the three-judge panel. Schwartz wrote the Trump Administration demonstrated no good reason to bypass public notice or the opportunity to provide commentary on the rules adopted by the Administration in 2017.

The Trump administration argued in past proceedings that the harm caused to employers who have religious objections to the Obama Care provision made it necessary to act urgently on the matter.

Judge Schwartz countered by saying the desire to lessen the harm done to employers is not cause to ignore ‘appropriate procedures.’ She characterized a decision by the government to adopt a final set of rules in 2018 that were not allowed by Obama Care as lacking ‘open-mindedness.

Trump Blocks Don McGahn’s Assistant From Spilling The Obstruction Beans

Governor Cuomo signed a bill that could help Congress get Trump’s state tax returns. New York can turn over state tax returns to Congress if a congressional committee asks for them, according to the bill Cuomo signed. Congress sued Trump and the Treasury Department in order to get Trump’s federal returns, but the case is a court battle. Richard Neal, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, told the press he won’t ask for the state returns until his lawsuit against Trump ends.

Mr. Trump didn’t waste time when British Ambassador Kim Darroch’s secret memos hit the press. He told Prime Minister May Darroch is a loser, and he wants to send him home. Darroch’s description of the dysfunction, chaos, ineptness, and unpredictability that surrounds everything Trump touches is no secret. The media made the same claims about the president, but he was able to deflect those comments by calling the mainstream media “Fake News.”

But Darroch didn’t call Trump an insecure and incompetent president to sell news articles. He wrote about Trump’s presidency so his country could determine how to deal with Trump. Darroch’s memos paint a picture of a president who mixes a few facts with a lot of fiction when he stands in front of the cameras. Another Darroch memo said most of the people who attend Trump’s rallies are white. Darroch also told his superiors Trump could throw the World Trade Organization to the curb at any time, and he will continue to launch tariff weapons at allies.

The Democrats believe Trump continues to profit from foreign governments while he is in office. More than 36 subpoenas are in play and the goal is to dig into Trump secretive and complicated personal and business financial records. Last month, a federal judge gave the Democrats the green light to continue the legal discovery process.

The Department of Justice claims Trump will suffer irreparable damage if Congress sees his financial records. The DOJ wants to protect the presidential office in the battle over Trump’s financial records. But according to legal experts, Congress will eventually get Trump’s financial information. But it could take months before the all court proceedings end, according to CNN.

Attorney Annie Donaldson, Don McGahn’s former legal assistant, told Congress she couldn’t answer the 200 written questions about Trump’s meltdown over the Mueller investigation. The White House blocked her from answering questions about Trump’s conversations with former White House attorney Don McGahn. Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller, and Donaldson has the notes to prove it, according to the Washington Post. But getting her to testify about Trump’s quest to obstruct justice will take more time thanks to Trump’s legal stonewalling.

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 on Political Gerrymandering

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision along conservative-liberal lines that deciding the issue of political gerrymandering was beyond the court’s reach to decide. The court determined that gerrymandering is more of a political question than a judicial one that should be best decided in state legislatures. Partisan redistricting, though lamentable, does not fall under review of the federal courts.

Chief Justice Roberts was the decisive swing vote in yet another decision that mostly fell cleanly along conservative-liberal lines in the highest court. Instead of empowering the courts to do anything to forestall the possibility of worse gerrymandering in the future, Chief Justice Roberts’s decision simply flings back the onus on making tough decisions about political gerrymandering to individual states and the legislative branch.

The trouble, as many liberals see it, is that the states have already shown a problematic level of political bias in redrawing districts for partisan advantage. What’s more, the legislative body is paralyzed by partisan gridlock and unable to pass a law that would fairly affect hundreds of different political races in the future. Nonetheless, Justice Roberts defended his decision by saying, “federal judges have…no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution [to make these kinds of decisions].”

Chief Justice Roberts further bemoaned the fact that, even if such a power were constitutionally granted to the federal courts, there are no legal standards by which to navigate the process of political redistricting decisions. Some liberals were frustrated with Chief Justice Robert’s punt on the issue of redistricting, which he seemed to rebut by saying that though some maps are “unjust,” the courts are powerless to do anything about that injustice. Many legal scholars see Chief Justice Roberts’s decisive call in the 5-4 case as highly concerning moving forward.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision makes the upcoming 2020 elections that much more pivotal in the sense that new districts are slated to be drawn for the next decade. The state legislatures help in drawing many of the U.S. House of Representatives’s districts, so the Supreme Court’s recent decision has certainly added more weight to this upcoming round of elections.

In effect, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’s decision places more emphasis on the power of state legislatures and other non-judicial bodies to make these weighty redistricting decisions, though they’ve largely failed to remain non-partisan in the past. Hundreds of 2020 elections now have added political import.