06-18-2018 11:55:00 AM -0700
06-17-2018 08:12:25 AM -0700
06-15-2018 09:37:33 AM -0700
06-14-2018 04:17:55 PM -0700
06-12-2018 02:13:25 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


Friday's HOT MIC

Here is your HOT MIC for the day.

Trump explains crumnibus vote: All about the troops.

He also wants a line-item veto. Dems destroyed him in this round, and there's no way he'll get a line-item veto.

Congress tried to give President Bill Clinton a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court said, "Nope. Unconstitutional." This actually makes sense. In 1998, SCOTUS ruled in Clinton v. City of New York that using a line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the president of only parts of bills authorizing federal spending.

This takes away Congress's authority to draft legislation, especially on spending. Sorry, Trump, but the rules won't just magically change for you.

As there has been a lot of discussion here today about the budget and President Trump caving signing it, I thought I would post the link to the video I just did for the PJ Media Facebook page. Apologies for the vertical orientation, but FB was being difficult (AGAIN).

Not to be a party pooper, but I don't think Trump had much choice but to sign the creepy omnibus bill.  He has bigger fish to fry at the moment than a conservative wishlist - namely he's about to go into serious negotiations with North Korea.  He needs a strong military for that negotiating stance. He needs that to stand up to Putin as well. Further, it's real easy to sit in Congress as Cruz and Rand did and vote no, another thing to veto a bill as POTUS.  Way different, in fact, if you think about it.  Also, Trump was right to weigh in against the filibuster.  That should be followed up on. Okay, now, have at me as squishy but just remember my latest piece for PJM was just read aloud today by Rush Limbaugh.  So be careful whom you diss. [insert smiley here]

 

Stephen,

I'd love to join you for that meat and drink! But ironically, I am abstaining from drink during Lent (and meat on Fridays). Can't wait until Easter!

The real question is, does this betrayal inspire calls for a primary challenge from the Right, in addition to the one Trump might face from someone on the Left of the party. His "never again" promise holds very little weight, given the man's personal history (and his switching from one party to the other).

How does the Right hold him accountable after this? Will this cave-in motivate conservatives for 2018, or drive them away from the polls?

Tyler,

I came around to Trump at the convention. Not for anything he did or said, but because I couldn't counter Ace of Spades' SCOTUS argument after Scalia died.

As a result, we got Gorsuch. In fact, we're getting an almost-radically reformed federal bench -- and that's great. No regrets there.

The rest? Not so good. Here's what I said on Election Night:

And here we are almost 16 months later, and we're all out of matches.

Now then, about that apology you're hoping for from Anne Coulter:

Nope, no contrition from Anne. Just an empty threat to join Mueller, who is more of a Swamp Thing than almost anyone you could name.

It's been a bad day, but my bride and I plan to finish it with strong drink and grilled meat. If you lived closer, I'd invite you to join us.