“Right Jab And Left Jab” was created because we have two commenters that post on a daily basis either in our “IS IT TRUE” or “Readers Forum” columns concerning National or International issues.
Joe Biden and Ronald Reagan’s comments are mostly about issues of national interest.  The majority of our “IS IT TRUE” columns are about local or state issues, so we have decided to give Mr. Biden and Mr. Reagan exclusive access to our newly created “LEFT JAB and RIGHT JAB”  column. They now have this post to exclusively discuss national or world issues that they feel passionate about.
We shall be posting the “LEFT JAB” AND “RIGHT JAB” several times a week.  Oh, “Left Jab” is a liberal view and the “Right Jab is representative of the more conservative views. Also, any reader who would like to react to the written comments of the two gentlemen is free to do so.

FOOTNOTE: Any comments posted in this column do not represent the views or opinions of the City-County Observer or our advertisers.


  1. There really is a humanitarian crisis at the southern border:

    Texas Medical Professional: Migrants Quarantined with UNKNOWN Disease, 10-Year Old Girl Found With 20 Types of Semen In Her

    A medical professional on the border in Texas told Big League Politics that the crisis is reaching fever pitch, with three individuals now quarantined at a privately-owned hospital in El Paso with an unknown disease. The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not even been able to identify the disease the three migrants have, as the military guards the quarantine area.

    “There were some Congolese people caught crossing the border, it was suspected they had Ebola. In one facility there are three patients being held because they don’t know what they have. The CDC have been here to assess them. They are isolated, they only have certain specialists who can see them,” the medical professional tells Big League Politics.

    “We’ve had an outbreak of mumps over here.”

    “What scares me is what happens if we someone come over here with Ebola. We only need one person, and there’s a pandemic.”

    “There was a female, 10 years old, who was found with 20 different types of semen inside her body. She was dispatched to a family member. The girl who was with her who was supposedly a family member was not really a family member, just someone who bought her from her family in Guatemala. These are real problems that exist here on the border. There are some people who are trying to leave jugs of water out here for them. A lot of these people come to this country needing help,” the professional stated.

    Migrants are obtaining “Rent-A-Kids,” and since Border Patrol cannot perform DNA tests to determine if children are related to adults most of the human traffickers get into our country.

    “In Juarez, there is a huge influx of Cubans right now. They have taken over the streets and started a prostitution ring among them. The Cubans cannot cross here. If they have Cuban citizenship, they cannot cross here.”

    “There are a lot of people who come here from El Salvador, Guatemala who are in acute renal failure, they cannot walk. There are some who have come with cirrhosis of the liver. I’ve seen some patients who are almost at the point of dying with the cirrhosis that they have,” the medical professional stated. “The time and resources it takes up to treat them is massive.”


    • Suspected ISIS Members Arrested In Nicaragua After Homeland Security Alert

      The Department of Homeland Security has often warned that terrorists might be infiltrating the United States through its open borders.

      Four men suspected of having ties to the Islamic State (ISIS) were arrested Tuesday in Nicaragua after Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) broadcasted an alert that the men might have entered Central America.

      Two of the men were Iraqi, and the other two were Egyptian, according to Reuters. They entered Nicaragua from Costa Rica and were apprehended by Nicaraguan armed forces. All four have been deported back to Costa Rica….


      • Over 100 ISIS terrorists have been arrested in Guatemala trying to enter the US southern border:

        Four ISIS terrorists planning to enter the United States through Mexico have been captured by the Nicaraguan military in a remote area where the men entered the Central American nation illegally from Costa Rica. Nicaraguan authorities identify the men as two Egyptian nationals—33-year old Mohamed Ibrahim and 26-year-old Mahmoud Samy Eissa—and two Iraqis, 41-year-old Ahmed Ghanim Mohamed Al Jubury and 29-year-old Mustafa Ali Mohamed Yaoob. The men arrived in Panama on May 12 and in Costa Rica on June 9, according to an article published in Nicaragua’s largest newspaper.

        It appears they had legal permission to enter Costa Rica, which is why Nicaragua deported them back there. Costa Rica’s national security chief, Michael Soto, confirmed the men entered the country legally and were approved by his country’s immigration control officials “with no problem.” Soto also revealed that “confidential information from an unknown source” later alerted Costa Rican officials of the men’s “criminal” ties. Various Mexican media outlets also reported that authorities there were warned that three—instead of four—ISIS operatives were making their way to the United States through Mexico via Central America. Mexico’s largest newspaper covered a press conference in which President Andrés Manuel López Obrador confirmed receiving an alert from the United States about the ISIS terrorists’ plan to enter Mexican territory to reach the American border.

        Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has essentially ignored this disturbing story which is simply the latest of many involving Islamic terrorists and the southwest border. Judicial Watch has for years uncovered evidence of Islamic terrorists infiltrating the U.S. through Mexico as part of an ongoing investigation into the national security crisis created by the dangerously porous southern border. Judicial Watch has interviewed local, state and federal law enforcement officials as well as U.S. and Mexican military sources and has traveled to remote Mexican border towns to interview American ranchers. When the Central American caravan got started last fall, Judicial Watch deployed an investigative team to the Guatemala-Honduras border after Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales confirmed that nearly 100 ISIS terrorists had been apprehended in the impoverished Central American nation.


  2. ***BREAKING NEWS*** JethroBodine will need his blankie since Twittler got smacked down

    Supreme Court Slaps Down Trump Citizenship Census Question

    The Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, giving a victory to states and civil rights groups who said the question would jeopardize what is perhaps the most crucial information the government collects

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dept. of Commerce v. New York, where the state of New York sued over the question the Trump administration placed on the census asking about legal citizenship. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that the Department of Commerce did not provide an adequate explanation for its decision

    The Court decided that they agreed with lower court decisions and that the reason for putting the question on the census was “invalid”

    The Trump administration claimed they needed the question to comply with federal voting rights laws, but New York called it purely partisan because it will prompt fewer Latinos to fill out the census. With fewer people filling out the census, legislative seats are more likely to garner Republican Congressional districts through gerrymandering

    The piece of the argument that made things different was that a key Republican operative who recently died had developed a plan for this census question for exactly this purpose. The hard drives uncovered on the late GOP operative showed that the Trump administration used his documents to justify putting the question on the census.

    “The documents released yesterday make clear that the administration’s true motivation for adding the citizenship question is to enable a political power grab that would benefit Republican voters while disenfranchising Democrats and people of color” wrote the Brennan Center for Justice

    Each lower court considering the issue has blocked the Trump administration from adding the question. Congress has attempted to hold a hearing and investigate the issue, but Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has refused to appear or provide documents.

    The decision sent the question back to lower courts and told the Commerce Department that they could try to write the question again, though it didn’t give guidance for how. The Commerce Department said that they had to have the decision by the court by the end of June because they had to print the census out. If the Department rewrites the question and asks the Supreme Court to rule on the re-written question, it would not be decided until the next session, because the court goes on a break until their October term.


    • Justice Roberts has been a total disaster on SCOTUS. The liberals ignore precedent to reach a purely partisan political outcome. Read the dissent and discover the real and present danger of having a Bernie or Pocahontas appointing Justices. That activist voting block will be changed when Trump gets more appointments in his next term:

      Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, would have ruled entirely in favor of the Trump administration, beginning:

      In March 2018, the Secretary of Commerce exercised his broad discretion over the administration of the decennial census to resume a nearly unbroken practice of asking a question relating to citizenship. Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. That ought to end our inquiry.

      The Court, however, goes further. For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale. Echoing the din of suspicion and distrust that seems to typify modern discourse, the Court declares the Secretary’s memorandum “pretextual” because, “viewing the evidence as a whole,” his explanation that including a citizenship question on the census would help enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA) “seems to have been contrived.” The Court does not hold that the Secretary merely had additional, unstated reasons for reinstating the citizenship question. Rather, it holds that the Secretary’s stated rationale did not factor at all into his decision.

      The Court’s holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions. And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law. It is not difficult for political opponents of executive actions to generate controversy with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives. Significant policy decisions are regularly criticized as products of partisan influence, interest- group pressure, corruption, and animus. Crediting these accusations on evidence as thin as the evidence here could lead judicial review of administrative proceedings to devolve into an endless morass of discovery and policy disputes not contemplated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

      Unable to identify any legal problem with the Secretary’s reasoning, the Court imputes one by concluding that he must not be telling the truth….

      The law requires a more impartial approach. Even assuming we are authorized to engage in the review undertaken by the Court—which is far from clear—we have often stated that courts reviewing agency action owe the Executive a presumption of regularity. The Court pays only lipservice to this principle. But, the evidence falls far short of supporting its decision. The Court, I fear, will come to regret inventing the principles it uses to achieve today’s result.

      After dissecting Roberts’s opinion for the majority, Thomas responded:

      This conclusion is extraordinary. The Court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion. Moreover, each step of the inquiry offends the presumption of regularity we owe the Executive. The judgment of the District Court should be reversed.

      Thomas later explained:

      We have held that a court is ordinarily limited to evaluating the agency’s contemporaneous explanation in light of the existing administrative record… If an agency’s stated findings and conclusions withstand scrutiny, the APA does not permit a court to set aside the decision solely because the agency had other unstated reasons for its decision, such as political considerations or the Administration’s priorities.

      “Unsurprisingly, then, this Court has never held an agency decision arbitrary and capricious on the ground that its supporting rationale was ‘pretextual,’” Thomas reasoned. “Nor has it previously suggested that this was even a possibility.”

      “But even if they were, an agency action is not arbitrary or capricious merely because the decisionmaker has other, unstated reasons for the decision,” he added.

      “The Court errs at the outset by proceeding beyond the administrative record to evaluate pretext,” the three justices went on. “Respondents have not made a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.”

      After examining the purported evidence, Thomas determined:

      This evidence fails to make a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior. Taken together, it proves at most that the Secretary was predisposed to add a citizenship question to the census and took steps to achieve that end before settling on the VRA rationale he included in his memorandum. Perhaps he had reasons for adding the citizenship question other than the VRA, but by the Court’s own telling, that does not amount to evidence of bad faith or improper behavior.

      “Even if it were appropriate for the Court to rely on evidence outside the administrative record, that evidence still fails to establish pretext,” he added.

      “I do not understand how the specificity of the DOJ’s letter bears on whether the Secretary’s rationale was pretextual,” Thomas continued, “particularly since the letter specifically explained why ‘census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in [VRA] litigation’ than existing data.”

      “In short, the evidence cited by the Court establishes, at most,” Thomas reasoned, “that leadership at both the Department of Commerce and the DOJ believed it important—for a variety of reasons—to include a citizenship question on the census.”

      “Finally, if there could be any doubt about this conclusion, the presumption of regularity resolves it,” he added for good measure. “Where there are equally plausible views of the evidence, one of which involves attributing bad faith to an officer of a coordinate branch of Government, the presumption compels giving the benefit of the doubt to that officer.”

      Thomas concluded for himself, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh:

      Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccess- ful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws.

      In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only.

      Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strongly worded dissent that basically tracked the same bottom line as Justice Thomas’s opinion, beginning:

      It is a sign of our time that the inclusion of a question about citizenship on the census has become a subject of bitter public controversy and has led to today’s regrettable decision. While the decision to place such a question on the 2020 census questionnaire is attacked as racist, there is a broad international consensus that inquiring about citizenship on a census is not just appropriate but advisable. No one disputes that it is important to know how many inhabitants of this country are citizens.And the most direct way to gather this information is to ask for it in a census. The United Nations recommends that a census inquire about citizenship,and many countries do so.

      Asking about citizenship on the census also has a rich history in our country. Every census, from the very first one in 1790 to the most recent in 2010, has sought not just a count of the number of inhabitants but also varying amounts of additional demographic information. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, as president of the American Philosophical Society, signed a letter to Congress asking for the inclusion on the census of questions regarding “the respective numbers of native citizens, citizens of foreign birth, and of aliens” “for the purpose . . . of more exactly distinguishing the increase of population by birth and immigration.”

      “Now, for the first time, this Court has seen fit to claim a role with respect to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census,” wrote Alito, “and in doing so, the Court has set a dangerous precedent, both with regard to the census itself and with regard to judicial review of all other executive agency actions.”

      “To put the point bluntly,” he continued, “the Federal Judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”

      “In addition to requiring an examination of the text and structure of the relevant statutes,” Alito explained, “our APA §701(a)(2) cases look to whether the agency action in question is a type that has traditionally been viewed as committed to agency discretion or whether it is instead one that federal courts regularly review.”

      “Here, there is no relevant record of judicial review. We are confronted with a practice that reaches back two centuries,” Alito reasoned. “Notably absent from that long record is any practice of judicial review of the content of the census.”

      “In sum, neither respondents nor my colleagues have been able to identify any relevant, judicially manageable limits on the Secretary’s decision to put a core demographic question back on the census,” he added.

      Alito concludes:

      Throughout our Nation’s history, the Executive Branch has decided without judicial supervision or interference whether and, if so, in what form the decennial census should inquire about the citizenship of the inhabitants of this country. Whether to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire is a question that is committed by law to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and is therefore exempt from APA review. The District Court had the authority to decide respondents’ constitutional claims, but the remainder of their complaint should have been dismissed.


      Conservatives and the Trump administration will be deeply disappointed by this decision, and are likely to harshly criticize the chief justice. Some will undoubtedly say that this was an attempt to avoid political controversy, as those same people said in 2012 when a 5-4 Roberts-led majority ruled in favor of Obamacare in NFIB v. Sebelius.

      The impact of today’s decision reaches far beyond the 2020 census. Justice Thomas concluded in his dissenting opinion for conservative justices:

      The Court’s erroneous decision in this case is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census. But the implications of today’s decision are broader. With today’s decision, the Court has opened a Pandora’s box of pretext-based challenges in administrative law.

      Today’s decision marks the first time the Court has ever invalidated an agency action as “pretextual.” Having taken that step, one thing is certain: This will not be the last time it is asked to do so. Virtually every significant agency action is vulnerable to the kinds of allegations the Court credits today. These decisions regularly involve coordination with numerous stakeholders and agencies, involvement at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, opposition from reluctant agency staff, and—perhaps most importantly—persons who stand to gain from the action’s demise. Opponents of future executive actions can be expected to make full use of the Court’s new approach.

      The case is Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

  3. JethroBodine apparently needs his new blankie fluffed since he is already posting Twittler 💩Breitfart💩 nonsense. Hilarious how Roberts is a villain when the right-wing Trumpsuckers lose

    Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship OUT!

    In a SETBACK for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected its stated reason for adding a question on citizenship to the census

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived”

    Executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public,” the chief justice wrote. “Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case”

    Trump commented on Twitter writing that he had “asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter”

    (NOTE: The census is every ten years per the Constitution! Once again, the right-wing cries and whines and ignores LAW when they do not get their way and need a 🚑🚑🚑 Waaahmbulance)

    Chief Justice Roberts wrote that executive branch officials ordinarily have broad discretion to make policy judgments. But he said the record in the case demonstrated that Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, had not given a full and accurate account of his decision to add the question.

    In sworn testimony before Congress, Mr. Ross said he had decided to add the question “solely” in response to a Justice Department request in December 2017 for data to help it enforce the Voting Rights Act, or the V.R.A. Three federal trial judges have ruled that the evidence in the record demonstrated that Mr. Ross was not being truthful.

    Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the evidence in the case showed that “the V.R.A. played an insignificant role in the decision-making process.” Instead, the chief justice wrote, Mr. Ross had tried hard to find a rationale for adding the question.

    “The secretary,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the attorney general himself to ask if D.O.J. would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.”

    “Altogether,” the chief justice wrote, “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.”

    The trial judge in the case had given the administration another chance to provide an explantation, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.

    “In these unusual circumstances,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the district court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.”

    The case has its roots in the text of the CONSTITUTION, which REQUIRES an “actual enumeration” every 10 years, with the House to be apportioned based on “the whole number of persons in each state”

    Documents disclosed in the case showed that Mr. Ross had discussed the citizenship issue early in his tenure with Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and an architect of the Trump administration’s tough immigration policies, and that Mr. Ross had met at Mr. Bannon’s direction with Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state and an opponent of unlawful immigration.

    After the justices heard arguments in April, more evidence emerged from the computer files of Thomas Hofeller, a Republican strategist. It suggested that the Trump administration sought to collect citizenship information so that states could draw voting districts by counting only eligible voters rather than all residents, as is the current practice. That would, Mr. Hofeller wrote, “be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites”


  4. Day 889: 🙈🙉🙊 Contrived 🙈🙉🙊

    1/ The Supreme Court blocked the citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census. The court found that while the Department of Commerce had a right to reinstate the question, the administration provided a “contrived” justification for doing so. The Trump administration claimed the citizenship question was necessary to better comply with federal voting rights law, while critics argued it is an attempt to intimidate immigrant households. The Department of Commerce will now have to justify the addition of the question, which raises the question of whether the Trump administration will have enough time or the ability to add it before the forms have to be printed. The administration previously told the court that the questionnaire needed to be printed by the end of June. The Census Bureau found the question would reduce the response rate –especially in immigrant communities – and result in an estimated 6.5 million people not being counted. (CNN / NBC News / New York Times / NPR / Washington Post)

    2/ Trump marked his arrival in Japan for the G20 Summit by lashing out at U.S. allies. He complained that if the U.S. were attacked, Japan would simply “watch it on a Sony television” instead of coming to America’s defense. He called Germany a security freeloader and complained about India’s new tariffs on U.S. goods. Trump is scheduled to meet with the leaders of all three countries on Friday. Trump did not, however, have anything negative to say about the fourth world leader on his meeting schedule for Friday: Putin. (New York Times)

    3/ Trump told reporters that what he says to Putin in private is “none of your business,” when asked what the two world leaders will discuss behind closed doors at the G20 Summit. Trump is scheduled to meet with Putin after House Democrats hear from the White House records chief about allegations that Trump tried to hide documents detailing his previous private conversations with Putin. (Politico / CBS News)

    4/ Two women corroborated E. Jean Carroll’s allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. Carroll privately confided in Carol Martin and Lisa Birnbach after the alleged attack. Both came forward to talk about the advice they gave Carroll at the time. Neither of the women had been publicly identified until now, and it was the first time since the alleged assault that they had discussed the incident together. Trump denied Carroll’s allegation and said she is “totally lying” and that he wouldn’t have assaulted her because “she’s not my type.” (New York Times)

    5/ The Trump International Hotel in Washington charged the Secret Service more than $200,000 in taxpayer money. The agency paid $33,638 for unspecified charges over two days in June, which coincided with Trump’s first re-election campaign fundraiser. The Secret Service was also billed for $14,900 for two days in June 2017 and another for $11,475 for two days the next month. (NBC News)


  5. Day 888: 🤷🤷 Terminated 🤷🤷

    1/ Robert Mueller agreed to testify before the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees in back-to-back public hearings on July 17th about his investigation into Russia’s election interference and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. The announcement came after the two panels issued a subpoena compelling Mueller’s testimony. Mueller previously said he did not want to testify and his report should serve as his testimony. Members of Mueller’s team will also participate in a closed-door session with lawmakers. (NBC News / Washington Post / New York Times / Politico / ABC News / CNN)

    2/ Trump attacked Mueller and – without evidence – accused him of committing a crime after House Democrats announced that Mueller would testify publicly next month. Trump claimed that Mueller “terminated” FBI communications by deleting text messages exchanged by two former FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. “And that’s illegal,” Trump tweeted. “That’s a crime.” Trump was referring to a report by the Justice Department inspector general that said it could not recover texts from the phones assigned to Strzok and Page, because by the time investigators requested the devices, they had been reset for other officials to use. Trump referred to Strzok and Page as “pathetic lovers” for having had an affair. (Washington Post / New York Times / Reuters)

    3/ The House Oversight Committee authorized a subpoena for Kellyanne Conway after she failed to show for a hearing about her alleged violations of the Hatch Act, a law that limits federal employees’ political activity. Special counsel Henry Kerner said Conway should be fired for blatantly and repeatedly violating the Hatch Act. The White House, meanwhile, blocked Conway from testifying about the allegations. Chairman Elijah Cummings warned that the committee would vote to hold Conway in contempt if she ignores the subpoena. (Washington Post / New York Times / CNN / Reuters / Politico / Axios)

    4/ The House approved a $4.5 billion aid package for the southwestern border. The 230-195 vote was mostly along party lines, with all but four Democrats supporting bill. Even if the two chambers are able to reach an agreement, it’s unclear if Trump will sign it into law. Democrats will now have to begin negotiations with Senate GOP leaders in order to get the aid package signed into law before the weeklong recess. (Politico / NBC News)

    5/ Trump complained that congressional Democrats “won’t do anything at all about border security” hours after the House passed the aid package to address the humanitarian crisis at the southern border. (Politico)

    6/ The Senate passed a $4.6 billion emergency spending bill for the southern border, rejecting the House legislation that attempted to set rules on how Trump could use the money. The Senate legislation allocates about $1.3 billion to improve border facilities and $2.9 billion for the care of migrant children. The measure would prohibit Homeland Security from adding more beds at detention centers or migrant processing facilities. House and Senate leaders must now decide whether to reconcile their conflicting proposals or head into a week-long July Fourth recess without addressing the growing humanitarian crisis. (New York Times / Politico / Associated Press / Washington Post / Wall Street Journal)

    ✏️ Notables ✏️

    Trump’s diplomatic protocol chief has been suspended indefinitely ahead of the G20 Summit in Japan. Sean Lawler is being investigated by the State Department inspector general over accusations that Lawler intimidated his staff and carried a whip in the office. The protocol chief assists the president during overseas trips and during visits from foreign leaders by making introductions and briefing the president on customs and protocol. Mary-Kate Fisher will take over as acting protocol chief. (CNN / Bloomberg)

    The EPA air chief resigned amid scrutiny over possible violations of federal ethics rules. Bill Wehrum helped reverse Obama-era rules aimed at cutting pollutants before joining the Trump administration. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been investigating Wehrum’s compliance with Trump’s ethics pledge, which requires political appointees to recuse themselves from specific matters involving their former employers and clients for two years. (Washington Post)


  6. Looks like the mORAL Majority that JethroBodine supports are (per usual) hypocrites 🙈🙉🙊

    🦄 Disgraced Anti-Gay Republican Spotted Putting Money In Underwear Of Male Dancer In Mexico City 🦄

    Disgraced Republican Congressman Aaron Schock was recently spotted slipping cash inside of the tight underpants of a Mexico City “go-go dancer” in a gay bar over the weekend.

    The Daily Mail reported the incident with photos and videos showing the 38-year-old Illinois politician in Boy Bar, described as an “LGBTQ dive bar” in the Red light District.

    Schock was forced to resign in 2015 after using taxpayer dollars to fund lavish vacations with his personal photographer. The issues arose when Schock’s office became famous because he modeled the decor after the popular BBC show “Downton Abbey,” which was also paid for by taxpayer funds.

    According to Politico, Schock was charged with “24 felony counts alleging that he fleeced taxpayers and campaign donors through false expense claims, including inflated mileage reimbursements, personal travel expenses and camera gear — and by using campaign funds to buy Super Bowl tickets that he sold online”

    Schock was indicted and set to face the music but in March suddenly prosecutors dropped the charges. The deal had Schock plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

    The person who captured the video told the Daily Mail that he was surprised to see Schock there given he was a supporter of anti-gay policies.

    “The last person I would expect to see in Boy Bar is a former Republican congressman. I was taking a video of the go-go dancer on stage and all of a sudden I saw him. He looked like he was enjoying himself” said the reporter


Comments are closed.