Earlier today, following a brief visit to the White House, Secretary Rex Tillerson welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to the State Department.

.

STATE DEPT – “I want to welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov to the State Department and express my appreciation for him making the trip to Washington so that we can continue our dialogue and our exchange of views that began in Moscow with the dialogue he hosted on a very broad range of topics. Thank you.”

~ Secretary Rex Tillerson

Again, the multidimensional politics of how President Trump utilized the leverage of Comey’s firing to diffuse the toxic antagonism with the Russian relationship is so far beyond diplomatic history making – modern historians have not yet been born who can aptly outline its consequence.

♦ President Trump stroked the Chinese Panda perfectly in Mar-a-lago.
♦ Today President Trump tickled the Russian Bear.
♦ We have already seen the jaw-dropping benefits from the Panda.
♦ Now we get to watch the results from the Bear.

History in our lifetime, and yet the media can’t even fathom the scope and details within the execution of a strategy…. right down to the optics of the tie.

“complicated business folks,… complicated business”

(Via ABC) U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are interviewing candidates to take over the FBI as interim director, after James Comey’s firing Tuesday.

Four candidates are being interviewed today, fielded from senior FBI and Justice Department officials and the heads of FBI field offices across the country, according to a Justice Department official.

The four candidates: FBI Executive Assistant Director Paul Abbate, who leads the agency’s cyber and criminal branch; National Counterintelligence Executive William Evanina; Special Agent Adam Lee, who runs the Richmond field office; and Special Agent Michael Anderson, who runs the Chicago field office.

A new FBI director is expected to be chosen and announced within the next 24 to 48 hours.

“The president is in the process of evaluating individuals who will be able to fill that spot, lead the FBI and restore the confidence in the American people,” Vice President Mike Pence said today on Capitol Hill.  (read more)

Watch Vice President Mike Pence:

,

[ Via White House ] President Donald J. Trump today announced his third wave of Federal judicial appointments. These appointments follow the successful nomination and confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States and the nomination of Judge Amul R. Thapar of Kentucky to serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Specifically, the President today announced his nomination of these individuals to the following Federal judgeships.

♦ If confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Amy Coney Barrett currently serves as the Diane and M.O. Miller II Research Professor of Law at the Notre Dame University Law School. Professor Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation—publishing scholarship in leading legal journals, such as the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Professor Barrett clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Following her clerkships, as an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Professor Barrett has also served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School, and as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia. Professor Barrett received her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, and her J.D., summa cum laude, from the Notre Dame University Law School, where she served as Executive Editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

♦ If confirmed, John K. Bush of Kentucky will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. John Bush is currently a partner in the Louisville office of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department. Mr. Bush practices in complex litigation, including antitrust, securities, financial institutions, insurance, intellectual property, and product liability disputes. He has extensive litigation experience in state and Federal courts in many jurisdictions and in arbitration proceedings. Before joining Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Mr. Bush practiced law at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP in Washington, D.C. Earlier in his career, Mr. Bush clerked for Judge J. Smith Henley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Bush received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Vanderbilt University and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

♦ If confirmed, Joan L. Larsen of Michigan will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Justice Joan Larsen currently serves as the 111th Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was appointed to the Court in 2015, and was then elected to that Court by the people of Michigan in 2016—winning every county in the state. Before assuming office, Justice Larsen served on the faculty of the University of Michigan Law School, where she was also special counsel to the Dean. An award-winning legal scholar, Justice Larsen taught for more than a decade at the University of Michigan, where she received the L. Hart Wright Award for Excellence in Teaching. Before joining the University of Michigan faculty, Justice Larsen clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Justice Larsen received her B.A. from the University of Northern Iowa and her J.D. from Northwestern University Law School, from which she graduated first in her class and where she served as an Articles Editor on the Northwestern University Law Review.

♦ If confirmed, Kevin C. Newsom of Alabama will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Newsom is currently the chair of the appellate group at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, resident in the firm’s Birmingham office. Before joining Bradley, Mr. Newsom served as the Solicitor General of Alabama, where he directed the State’s litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals, and the Alabama Supreme Court. Mr. Newsom has argued four cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and has argued more than 35 cases in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, as well as in state supreme and appellate courts and a Native American tribal appellate court. In addition to this service, Chief Justice John Roberts has twice appointed Mr. Newsom to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, which advises the Judicial Conference of the United States concerning amendments and improvements in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Earlier in his career, Mr. Newsom clerked for Associate Justice David Souter of the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Newsom received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Samford University, and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where he served as an Articles Editor on the Harvard Law Review.

♦ If confirmed, David R. Stras will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Justice David Stras currently serves as a Justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Stras was appointed to the Court in 2010. Before his appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Justice Stras was a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, while also serving as counsel at the Minneapolis law firm of Faegre & Benson. Earlier in his career, Justice Stras clerked for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and for Judge Melvin Brunetti of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Stras received his B.A. with highest distinction from the University of Kansas, his M.B.A. from the University of Kansas, and his J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Criminal Procedure Edition of the Kansas Law Review.

♦ If confirmed, David C. Nye of Idaho will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Judge David C. Nye currently serves as an Idaho trial court judge in Pocatello, Idaho. Judge Nye was appointed to the state trial court in 2007 and was reelected by the people of Idaho to that position in 2010 and 2014. Previously, Judge Nye was a partner at Merrill & Merrill, Chartered, in Pocatello, Idaho. Judge Nye received his B.A. and his J.D. from Brigham Young University.

♦ If confirmed, Scott L. Palk of Oklahoma will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Scott Palk currently serves as the Assistant Dean for Students and Assistant General Counsel at the University of Oklahoma College of Law in Norman, Oklahoma—a position he has held since 2011. Mr. Palk took this position after 19 years of public service as a state and Federal prosecutor, where he worked on death penalty, organized crime, and terrorism cases. Mr. Palk earned his undergraduate degree in Business Administration from Oklahoma State University and his J.D. from the University of Oklahoma College of Law.

♦ If confirmed, Damien M. Schiff of California will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Damien Schiff is currently a Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a non-profit legal organization based in Sacramento, California. Mr. Schiff has extensive experience litigating cases concerning a variety of Federal and state environmental and land-use issues, including Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a groundbreaking decision in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of landowners to challenge Clean Water Act compliance orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Earlier in his career, Mr. Schiff clerked for Judge Victor J. Wolski of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Schiff received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Georgetown and his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2004.

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Judicial Candidates

The President today announced his intent to nominate of these individuals to the following Federal judgeships.

♦ If confirmed, Dabney L. Friedrich of Washington, D.C., will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Dabney Friedrich has a lengthy career of distinguished public service. Most recently, Ms. Friedrich served as a Commissioner on the United States Sentencing Commission, where she established sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system by promulgating guidelines for congressional review and recommending changes in criminal statutes. Prior to that service, Ms. Friedrich served as an Associate Counsel to the President during the George W. Bush Administration, as Chief Crime Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, as a trial attorney at the Department of Justice, and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of California. Before holding those positions, Ms. Friedrich clerked for Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the District of Columbia District Court. Ms. Friedrich received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Trinity University, her Diploma in Legal Studies from Oxford University, and her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she served as a Senior Editor on the Yale Journal on Regulation.

♦ If confirmed, Terry F. Moorer of Alabama will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Judge Terry F. Moorer currently serves as a Magistrate Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, a position he assumed in 2007. Before assuming his judgeship, Judge Moorer served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, as a Command Judge Advocate in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, and as an attorney in the Office of Staff Judge Advocate in Fort Rucker, Alabama. Judge Moorer earned his Associate of Arts from the Marion Military Institute, his B.A. from Huntington College, and his J.D. from the University of Alabama Farrah School of Law.

(White House Link)

No doubt VA Secretary David Shulkin will utilize the newest legislation passed in March which makes it easier to fire VA employees found to be deficient in their responsibility to provide veterans healthcare.  President Trump has also enhanced the accountability within the VA system with whistleblower protections and a specific office of accountability.

(Via Washington Free Beacon)  More than 100 veterans died while waiting for care at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Los Angeles, Calif., over a nine-month span ending in August 2015, according to a new government report.

The VA Office of Inspector General found in a recent healthcare inspection that 225 veterans at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System facility died with open or pending consults between Oct. 1, 2015 and Aug. 9, 2015. Nearly half—117—of those patients died while experiencing delays in receiving care.

The inspector general reported that 43 percent of the 371 consults scheduled for patients who ended up dying were not timely because of a failure by VA employees to follow proper procedure. The report was unable to substantiate claims that patients died as a result of the delayed consults. (read more)

Earlier today President Donald Trump signed HR244 into law.  The provisional spending bill that funds government through September 30th, the end of fiscal year 2017.

There has been a great deal of anxiety amid punditry about the spending outline itself, and the spending priorities as determined by both houses of congress.  Some of the criticism is warranted, most is not.

The basic principle the entire professional political class seem to overlook is the reasoning for the CR itself.  Congress has been unable to fulfill its budgetary obligation since 2007.

In fact, the last federal budget (fiscal year ’08) was signed into law in September of 2007.  By the conclusion of this CR it will have been an entire decade without a federal budget.

Perspective: ♦ Over half of all elected federal politicians have never held elected office in any year with a federal budget in place.  ♦ Almost two-thirds of Republicans in congress have never known a federal budget for a single day in office.

THAT FACT should be the target of the ire from all Americans, particularly conservatives.  However, hypocritically, it is not.

For some reason ankle-biters, antagonists, and crony constitutional punditry amid the various CONservative outlets, choose instead to focus their criticism toward the first president in our lifetime to actually deliver on conservative policy, conservative values and expressed policy objectives/outcomes that benefit all common sense Americans.

A pox belongs on the hypocritical houses, columns, shows, radio broadcasts and panel segments of current critics who watched it all unfold.  My cold anger does not provide room for me to give any f**ks toward such inane and disingenuously hypocritical positions.  Sorry for cussing, but sheeesh.

In short, stuff it – there’s actual work to be done.

Having said that, My President rightly qualifies his signature today and delivers congressional notification of how the 2,000 page omnibus spending bill will be interpreted:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, which authorizes appropriations that fund the operation of the Federal Government through September 30, 2017.

Certain provisions of this bill (e.g., Division C, sections 8049, 8058, 8077, 8081, and 8116; Division J, under the heading “Contribution for International Peacekeeping Activities”) would, in certain circumstances, unconstitutionally limit my ability to modify the command and control of military personnel and materiel or unconstitutionally vest final decision-making authority in my military advisers.  Further, Division B, section 527; Division C, section 8101; and Division F, section 517 each restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States; Division C, section 8103 restricts the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries and does not include an exception for when a court might order the release of a detainee to certain countries.  I will treat these, and similar provisions, consistently with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Certain provisions (e.g., Division C, sections 8040, 8075, 8114, 9005, 9011, 9014, and under the headings “Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide,” “Afghanistan Security Forces Fund,” “Counter-ISIL Train and Equip Fund,” and “Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Fund”) require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance.  In approving this bill, I wish to reiterate the longstanding understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only military actions for which providing advance notice is feasible and consistent with my constitutional authority and duty as Commander in Chief to protect national security.

Numerous provisions could, in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of my constitutional authorities to negotiate international agreements (e.g., Division B, sections 509, 519, 530; Division J, sections 7010(c), 7013(a), 7025(c), 7029, 7031(e)(2), 7037, 7042, 7043, 7044, 7045, 7048, 7060, 7070, and 7071), to receive ambassadors (e.g., Division J, section 7031(c)), and to recognize foreign governments (e.g., Division J, section 7070(b)(2)(A)).  My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistently with my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations.

Division E, section 622 prohibits the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses for several advisory positions in the White House.  The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority.  The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it.  Legislation that significantly impedes my ability to supervise or obtain the views of appropriate senior advisers violates the separation of powers by undermining my ability to exercise my constitutional responsibilities, including to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  My Administration will, therefore, construe section 622 consistently with these Presidential prerogatives.

Division B, section 537 provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories.  I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Several provisions (e.g., Division C, section 10006(b); Division D, section 401; Division J, section 7041(b)(3); Division N, sections 310, 311, 402, 502(d), and 503) mandate or regulate the submission of certain executive branch information to the Congress.  I will treat these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of my constitutional duties.  In particular, Division E, section 713(1) and (2) prohibits the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain official communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress or who takes adverse action against an officer or employee because of such communications.  I will construe these provisions not to apply to any circumstances that would detract from my authority to supervise, control, and correct employees’ communications with the Congress related to their official duties, including in cases where such communications would be unlawful or could reveal confidential information protected by executive privilege.

Division C, section 8009 prohibits the use of funds to initiate a special access program unless the congressional defense committees receive 30 days’ advance notice.  The President’s authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority.  Although I expect to be able to provide the advance notice contemplated by section 8009 in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise in which I must act promptly while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information.  In these situations, I will treat these sections in a manner consistent with my constitutional authorities, including as Commander in Chief.

Several provisions (e.g., Division C, section 8134; Division J, section 7063; and Division K, section 418) prohibit the use of funds to deny an Inspector General access to agency records or documents.  I will construe these, and similar provisions, consistently with my authority to control the dissemination of information protected by executive privilege.

Several provisions prohibit the use of funds to recommend legislation to the Congress (e.g., Division A, section 716; Division C, sections 8005, 8014, 8070(a)(2), 8076; and Division H, section 210), or require recommendations of legislation to the Congress (e.g., Division C, section 8012(b), 8035(b); Division F, section 532; Division G, sections 101, 102, and a proviso under the heading “Administrative Provisions—Forest Service”; Division N, sections 605(c) and 610).  Because the Constitution gives the President the authority to recommend “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article II, section 3), my Administration will continue to treat these, and similar provisions, as advisory and non-binding.

Numerous provisions authorize congressional committees to veto a particular use of appropriated funds (e.g., Division C, section 8058), or condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees (e.g., Division A, sections 702, 706, and 717; Division D, sections 101(a) and 201(a); Division G, sections 403 and 409; Division K, sections 188, 222, 405 and 406).  These are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes.  My Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.

My Administration shall treat provisions that allocate benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., Division B, under the heading “Minority Business Development”; Division C, sections 8016, 8021, 8038, and 8042; Division H, under the headings “Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses,” “School Improvement Programs,” and “Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account”; Division K, under the heading “Native American Housing Block Grants”; and Division K, section 213) in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

DONALD J. TRUMP –  THE WHITE HOUSE,  May 5, 2017.

Allow me to clarify for the annoying gnats with an apt methaphor.

President Trump arrived at the White House as it was burning down from the prior 15 years of inherently corrupt, and in many cases absent, fiscal policy.

The national debt doubled in one single administration as hoards of special interests raided the national treasury.  Congress did squat to prevent the theft; and in many cases a solid argument can be made that they actually participated in the raiding.

Simultaneous to this arrival, the most dangerous nuclear military threat since the Cuban missile crisis was laid directly at the feet of the incoming administration, North Korea.

Through the prior four administrations (Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama) no concrete policy to stop the nuclear threat from growing was at the forefront of national security policy.

However, worse than not doing anything to stop it, the prior administrations’ did nothing to prepare the nation for the possibility of the worst case scenario: their inability to stop it.

The reality of this landscape is what President Trump addressed upon arrival.

With this North Korea crisis stark and looming, the first priority of President Trump has been to immediately build-up a military force so that we at least have a preventative option in the event diplomacy fails, and a worst case scenario evidences itself.

As a direct and real consequence, the military spending WAS/IS the top short-term budgetary priority for a long-term survival need.   President Trump let everyone know  national security via the military investment need was priority number one; because the reality is: the threat from North Korea is national security issue number one.

That urgent financial objective, to fund the restoration of a strong military, was met.

The rest, all other priorities, can and will be addressed in an actual budget for fiscal year 2018 that has been put forth by President Trump.

And, I’m sure, our president will go to the mattresses if needed to fight for the next level priorities to complete the policy objectives of his administration.

Remember these words: “either we have a country or we don’t”…

….Everything else, as important as each “else” might be, is details.