IS STEPHEN HAWKING WATCHING CABLE NEWS

By Rick Jensen

The House is holding inconsequential hearings on why Donald Trump hired, and then fired, General Mike Flynn as National Security Director.

Amid it all, we’ve learned that President Obama vaguely warned Trump about Flynn.

“‘Given the importance of the job, the President thought there were better people for it, and that Flynn wasn’t up for the job,’ a former senior Obama administration official told CNN.

So that was the big warning:Obama didn’t think highly of Flynn.

Your grain of salt includes the fact that Obama thought highly of Tim Geitner, the disgraced Treasury Secretary who kind of forgot to pay his taxes for a few years. He also liked Susan Rice, who lied to the U.N., the American people and the world, communist “Energy Czar” Van Jones and many others.

Fortunately, Trump decided within a couple of weeks that Flynn was on the take from foreign countries without full disclosure and fired him.

The star witnesses against Flynn include former acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates, whom Trump fired for refusing to enforce the President’s travel ban.

Yates called it illegal, even though it had not been adjudicated.That makes her a bona fide hero to Democrats.

The way Trump fired her makes her even more of a hero, perhaps a Hollywood movie hero at some point.

Trump’s press release excoriated Yates: “The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”

“Betrayed.”Weak on borders.”Weak on illegal immigration.”

Those words are a badge of honor for a liberal Democrat.

So, she had to know she would be asked to resign once she decided to tell the boss she refused to do her job.

It’s not too hard to guess what Democrats really want from these hearings is for someone to say Trump knew all along that Flynn was conspiring with the Russians to leverage the election in his favor with the phished Hillary campaign emails.

Sure, that would give Democrats more arguments to declare Trump’s presidency “illegitimate,” but they’re already doing that.

Stunningly, two more star witnesses are Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former NSA Director General Michael Hayden, both of questionable integrity.

Clapper testified “President Putin directed an influence campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process.He did so to demean Secretary Clinton and he sought to advantage Mr. Trump.”,

This testimony could be devastating except for the source.Clapper has already lied to Congress under oath about NSA eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.

The Republicans were too cowardly to prosecute.

He also lied about Trump’s “wiretap” claim.

“There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign,” Mr. Clapper once said.

Reporters learned that the F.B.I. did obtain a court-approved wiretap on campaign advisor Carter Page, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent.

Hayden also lied to Congress under oath about the NSA eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.

No matter what these hearings reveal, it will matter little when the witnesses are as corrupt as any defendant may be.

As truthful as Yates may be about her warning a Trump associate, Clapper and Hayden poison the well.

Then Trump fires FBI Director James Comey as the hearings heat up and to their own detriment Democrats’ televised passion against firing Comey is just as passionate as their original mania for him to be fired.

All of the players seem to be nuts.

Richard Branson now promises Stephen Hawking a ride on his private spaceship as Hawking dreams of humans populating other planets while this one spins into eventual oblivion.

Does he really think these human frailties won’t follow?

———

© Copyright 2017 Rick Jense

IL for www.theindianalawyer.com

Luxury automobile dealership Dreyer & Reinbold Inc. is facing a federal trial after being sued for discrimination by a former employee who says she was fired because she suffered a stroke.

A jury trial has been set for June 19 in the case, which pits Karla Edson against the Indianapolis-based seller of new and used vehicles. The lawsuit alleges the car dealership discriminated against Edson because of her stroke-related disabilities and violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, which is intended to protect job security for employees who must take time off for health-related reasons.

Indianapolis-based D&R, founded in 1966, operates two local superstores, one on the north side of Indianapolis and another in Greenwood that sell vehicles under the BMW, Infiniti, Subaru. Volkswagen, Maserati and Mini brands.

D&R President Dennis Reinbold also owns Dreyer & Reinbold Racing, which has competed in the IndyCar circuit since 2000.

Edson, who worked as appointment coordinator for the service department at D&R’s Greenwood location for more than nine years, was fired in May 2015, less than a month after she had the stroke.

In her suit, Edson said D&R Service Manager James Kizer and General Manager Brian Gauker reacted negatively to her need for intermittent leave requested under the FMLA. Edson said the managers were reluctant to structure her schedule so she could attend speech-therapy sessions one day a week.

Kizer also expressed concern when Edson told him she would need to use a wheeled walker, or “scooter,” at work because she was having difficulty walking. He was “worried that the scooter would not fit the company’s image,” she said in court papers.

Edson said she was called into Kizer’s office the first day she brought the walker to work and was told she was being terminated because her position was being eliminated in a restructuring.

In her suit, Edson said she asked Kizer why the company couldn’t find another position for her “after nine years of faithful service.” She said Kizer gestured at her walker when he told her there was now no place for her to work.

Edson is represented by attorneys Daniel Kent and Mary Jane Lapointe of Indianapolis-based Lapointe Law Firm.

“Mrs. Edson was an excellent employee who suffered a catastrophic medical problem but came right back to work,” Kent said in written comments. “We allege, and we intend to prove at trial, that Mrs. Edson was fired because she no longer fit the company image when she became disabled and needed to use a walker. We believe that what the company did is reprehensible—they kicked her when she was down.”

Among other relief, Edson is seeking compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits, financial costs related to her loss of health care insurance and legal fees.

Kent declined to estimate the total amount of damages involved in the case, but said they would likely reach six figures.

After Edson filed her original complaint in August 2015, D&R filed a motion for summary judgment to have the lawsuit dismissed.

In court papers, D&R managers said they had already planned to eliminate Edson’s position prior to her stroke as part of a service department restructuring, but they had not gotten around to informing her of the decision. Her job was the only position eliminated in the restructuring.

The managers said they had been planning to move Edson into another job but later decided against it because two employees told them they heard Edson say she would quit if the dealership tried to move her to a new position.

Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore denied the summary-judgment motion in December, and the business filed an objection asserting that the judge had erred in his ruling because he omitted important facts from his report.

District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt overruled the objection and set a May 24 pretrial conference and a June 19 jury trial.

Attorney Jeffrey Halbert of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, who represents D&R in the case, said he wouldn’t discuss pending litigation.