{"id":91892,"date":"2017-09-19T21:38:05","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T21:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/mueller-v-trump-is-about-to-blow-up.html"},"modified":"2017-09-19T21:38:05","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T21:38:05","slug":"mueller-v-trump-is-about-to-blow-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/political\/mueller-v-trump-is-about-to-blow-up.html","title":{"rendered":"Mueller v. Trump is about to blow up"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t
\n\t \"Judicial<\/a><\/p>\n

Mueller working with NY attorney general on Manafort probe<\/a><\/h4>\n

Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton discusses reports that Robert Mueller is working with the New York attorney general on a Manafort probe.\n<\/p>\n

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up\u00a0here<\/a>.**

On the roster:\u00a0Mueller v. Trump is about to blow up\u00a0 – Trump preaches sovereignty in Trumpian U.N. address –\u00a0GOP rallies behind plan to send ObamaCare to states\u00a0– From the bleachers, Constitution Day edition –\u00a0Higgins could have told you\u00a0this would happen<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/i>MUELLER V. TRUMP IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP\u00a0
<\/b>We have always known that someday the cold war between\u00a0President Trump\u00a0<\/b>and Special Counsel\u00a0Robert Mueller\u00a0<\/b>would break into open conflict, and that day seems to be soon upon us.\u00a0<\/p>\n

An eye-popping report from the\u00a0NYT<\/a>\u00a0takes us inside the prosecution of former Trump campaign Chairman\u00a0Paul Manafort<\/b>.<\/p>\n

And a prosecution it most assuredly is.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The story opens with the dramatic scene of agents picking the lock on Manafort\u2019s front door to let themselves in for a pre-dawn raid related to his formerly undisclosed work for Kremlin-tied clients.<\/p>\n

More important, though, the story includes the revelation that Mueller\u2019s prosecutors explicitly told Manafort that they planned to indict him.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We had known before that the raid was part of aggressive tactics prosecutors are using against Manafort, who was already in trouble with the Feds for his work on behalf of shady foreign clients before he ever went to work for Trump. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

But the intensity with which Mueller Co. are cranking the meat grinder into which Manafort is now being fed tells us a great deal, and it would seem that things are about to get pretty crazy in Washington.<\/p>\n

One of the best developments for the Trump White House has been that with the arrival of competent managers and an experienced legal team, the flow of near-daily leaks and blabber about the investigation has trailed off.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Even as Trump was complaining about the media\u2019s undeniable obsession with the Russia probe, he and his team were serving up near-daily doses of that powerful elixir.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Russia chatter also quieted down because Mueller substantially wrestled control of the subject away from the nattering popinjays of Congress. One of the problems that have plagued this debate from the beginning has been that many members of Congress have been absolutely incontinent with sensitive information, offering selective leaks to help or harm their preferred side.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We have a great example of one of those today in a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0from CNN that is sourced to, well, \u201csources\u201d who say that agents got warrants to wiretap Manafort both before and after the election, with the tantalizing suggestion \u2013\u00a0but no proof at all \u2013 that there might be recordings of Trump talking to his former adviser.<\/p>\n

The story is a contradictory jumble, packed with suggestive language including this beaut: \u201cSome of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Oh, that clears it up\u2026<\/p>\n

Mueller hasn\u2019t been leaky in the least. There are a couple of items over the past few months that may trace their way back to his team, but most of what we know about their actions, like what is described in the NYT story, are pretty clearly pieced together by what people outside the investigation find out.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We get tips when Mueller has to bring in another agency for cooperation or when individuals are called to testify before a grand jury on the case or otherwise interact with prosecutors.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So in this relative silence we may have been tempted to forget the enormously high-stakes game playing out behind closed doors between Mueller and Trump through their proxies.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But those doors about to get kicked in. From what we now know from the NYT and what we can glean from CNN, it is obvious that Mueller is ready to start dropping the hammer on somebody.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If Manafort has decided to cooperate with Mueller we may not see the nuclear phase of Trump v. Mueller for a little longer yet. But if Manafort is prepared to take the heat for his former boss, things are likely to get very interesting, very soon.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The upside for the administration in this scenario is that they can get off of hypothetical questions of Russia and onto attacking individual legal gambits and narrow arguments. One of the best ways that\u00a0Bill Clinton<\/b>\u00a0beat Republicans 20 years ago was by defeating and isolating individual arguments rather than focusing on larger questions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mueller has made no secret that he wants to get where he\u2019s going quickly, and the legal team he assembled are not there for the long haul. They gave up too much money in their private lives to hang out and drink cafeteria coffee in a government office building all day.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That rumble that you felt today was a tectonic shift in the biggest story of the year.<\/p>\n

SENATE INTEL MEETING WITH TRUMP LAWYER CANCELLED
<\/b>Politico:<\/a>\u00a0\u201cSenate investigators called off an expected closed-door interview Tuesday with Michael Cohen<\/b>, saying they were upset that the longtime lawyer to President Donald Trump released a statement denying any role in Russian meddling in the 2016 election after the committee asked him not to comment publicly. The Senate Intelligence Committee now expects to schedule a public hearing with Cohen, as opposed to what was supposed to be a private interview on Tuesday, committee Chairman\u00a0Richard Burr<\/b>\u00a0(R-N.C.) and top Democrat\u00a0Mark Warner<\/b>\u00a0of Virginia said in a joint statement.\u00a0\u2018We were disappointed that Mr. Cohen decided to pre-empt today\u2019s interview by releasing a public statement prior to his engagement with committee staff\u2026\u2019 \u2026 \u2018As a result, we declined to move forward with today\u2019s interview and will reschedule Mr. Cohen\u2019s appearance before the committee in open session at a date in the near future.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Donald Trump Jr. drops Secret Service protection to have more privacy –<\/b>\u00a0Fox News<\/a>: \u201cDonald Trump Jr.<\/b>, his wife\u00a0Vanessa Trump<\/b>, and\u00a0Kellyanne Conway<\/b>\u00a0are dropping Secret Service protection, Fox News has confirmed. The move to get rid of round-the-clock protection came after Trump Jr. wished to have more privacy. Other family members of the president will remain under Secret Service protection. \u2026 White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway has also dropped Secret Service protection, sources told Fox News. She was given Secret Service protection following threats in the early days of the administration, but the threat level that has since changed, The New York Times reported.\u201d<\/p>\n

THE RULEBOOK:\u00a0IT AIN\u2019T EASY\u00a0<\/b>
<\/i>\u201cHistory informs us, likewise, of the difficulties with which these celebrated reformers had to contend, as well as the expedients which they were obliged to employ in order to carry their reforms into effect.\u201d \u2013\u00a0James Madison<\/i><\/b>,\u00a0Federalist No. 38<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

TIME OUT: REAL WORLD, OCTOPUS EDITION <\/b>
Science<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cOctopuses are reclusive animals, and the gloomy octopus (Octopus tetricus<\/i>) is no exception. \u2026 But in 2012, researchers reported that the species is surprisingly social. Diving in Jervis Bay, Australia, the scientists documented as many as 16 gloomy octopuses all living in a large pile of discarded shells \u2013\u00a0dubbed Octopolis\u00a0\u2013 mating and fighting, even during the daytime. Now, they have studied a second congregation a few hundred meters away\u2014the slightly less mellifluous Octlantis. The structure, which hosts 23 dens, consists of three patches of rocks, each surrounded by mounds of shells.\u00a0Video surveillance<\/a>\u00a0over 8 days\u00a0revealed up to 15 octopuses that mated and fought\u00a0there, the researchers report this month in\u00a0Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology. The octopuses kicked each other out of dens, went on chases, and appeared to threaten each other by standing up and darkening their bodies. At one point, they didn\u2019t even seem to notice a bottom-dwelling wobbegong shark sneaking up.\u201d<\/p>\n

Flag on the play? –<\/b>\u00a0Email us at
HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM<\/a>\u00a0with
your tips, comments or questions.<\/p>\n

SCOREBOARD
<\/b>Trump net job-approval rating:\u00a0-16.8 points
<\/b>Change from one week ago:\u00a0up 2.2 points<\/b><\/p>\n

[President Trump\u2019s score is determined by subtracting his average job disapproval rating in<\/i>\u00a0the five most recent, methodologically sound public polls from his average approval rating, calculated in the same fashion.<\/i>]<\/p>\n

TRUMP PREACHES SOVEREIGNTY IN TRUMPIAN U.N. ADDRESS<\/b>
Fox News:<\/a>\u00a0\u201cPresident\u00a0Donald Trump<\/b>\u00a0addressed the United Nations General Assembly\u00a0in New York City on Tuesday,\u00a0calling on strong, sovereign nations to work together side by side, but also vowing to always put \u2018America first.\u2019 \u2018Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security prosperity and peace for themselves and for the world,\u2019 Trump said. \u2018As President of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first,\u2019 he said. He said America does not seek to impose our way of life on anyone but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch. He said we must work together to confront those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil and terror, calling out North Korea, Iran and radical Islamists.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump threatens to \u2018totally destroy\u2019 NoKo, jabs \u2018Rocket Man\u2019 –\u00a0<\/b>Politico:<\/a>\u00a0\u201cTrump escalated his rhetoric toward the saber-rattling\u00a0Kim Jong Un<\/b>\u00a0regime beyond his prior \u2018fire and fury\u2019 warning, deploying his \u2018Rocket Man\u2019 nickname as he told UNGA \u2018no one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well-being of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea.\u2019 \u2018No nation on Earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles,\u2019 Trump said.\u00a0<\/b>\u2019The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

HIGH STAKES FOR VIRGINIA GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE\u00a0
<\/b>WashTimes<\/a>: \u201cDemocratic Lt.\u00a0Gov.\u00a0Ralph Northam<\/b>\u00a0and Republican\u00a0Ed Gillespie<\/b>\u00a0are locked in a tight battle to become the 73rd governor of Virginia, according to polls, as they make their final preparations ahead of their second of three scheduled debate showdowns Tuesday in Northern Virginia. \u2026\u00a0For the candidates, the hourlong forum offers them a rare opportunity to cut through all the political noise coming out of Washington, deliver their messages straight to voters on issues including taxes, health care, and transportation, and give those who tune in a chance to get a sense of what makes them tick. Analysts say many uncommitted voters will just be starting to focus on the race, which many see as an early harbinger of the midterm elections next year.\u201d<\/p>\n

Q\u00a0poll shows Northam ahead –\u00a0<\/b>WWBT<\/a>: \u201cA\u00a0new Quinnipiac University\u00a0poll\u00a0<\/a>has Democratic Lt. Gov.\u00a0Ralph Northam<\/b>\u00a0ahead of\u00a0Republican\u00a0Ed Gillespie<\/b>\u00a051 to\u00a041 percent in the race for Virginia governor. \u2026 According to the poll, Northam gets a 47 – 31 percent favorability rating among Virginia likely voters. Gillespie gets 40 percent favorable and 39 percent unfavorable.\u201d<\/p>\n

[Watch Fox: A new Fox News poll on the Virginia governor\u2019s race to be released tonight on a special two-hour edition Special Report with\u00a0Bret Baier<\/b>, starting at 5 p.m. ET<\/i>]<\/p>\n

Trump moves up rally for Alabama Senate underdog \u2018Big Luther\u2019 Strange –\u00a0<\/b>Politico<\/a>: \u201cPresident Donald Trump\u2019s rally in support of Sen.\u00a0Luther Strange<\/b>, initially scheduled for Saturday, will now be held Friday, according to Strange\u2019s campaign. Trump had announced earlier this week that he would campaign for Strange (R-Ala.) in Huntsville, Alabama, on Saturday, writing on Twitter that \u2018Big Luther\u2019 is a great guy who gets things done!\u2019 Strange\u2019s campaign announced Monday afternoon that the rally featuring Trump would in fact take place at 7 p.m. Friday.\u201d

Pence to campaign for Strange on eve of Tuesday vote\u00a0–\u00a0<\/b>Politico:<\/a>\u00a0\u201cVice President Mike Pence<\/b>\u00a0will campaign for Sen. Luther Strange next Monday in Alabama, a senior administration official and two top political operatives involved in the Alabama Senate race confirmed to POLITICO.\u00a0Pence\u2019s appearance in Alabama will come a day before the runoff between Strange and former Alabama chief Judge\u00a0Roy Moore<\/b>. President Donald Trump tweeted over the weekend that he planned to hold a rally in Huntsville the Saturday before Pence\u2019s appearance in support of Strange.\u00a0Pence will headline a get-out-the-vote rally for Strange.\u00a0Pence\u2019s appearance underscores the last-minute boost the White House is trying to give Strange in a race where most recent polls have shown him trailing Moore.\u201d<\/p>\n

GOP RALLIES BEHIND PLAN TO SEND OBAMACARE TO STATES<\/b>
<\/i>WashEx<\/a>: \u201cIt\u2019s now clear that\u00a0Republicans are trying to make one more run at overhauling Obamacare just before a Sept. 30 deadline on the use of the reconciliation instructions, which allow them to pass healthcare legislation with a simple majority. Vice President Mike Pence\u00a0<\/b>flew back\u00a0from President Trump\u2019s speech at the United Nations Tuesday morning so that he could get back to Washington in time to attend the Senate policy lunch, where the bill released by Sens.\u00a0Lindsey<\/b>\u00a0Graham<\/b>,\u00a0Bill Cassidy<\/b>,\u00a0Dean<\/b>\u00a0Heller<\/b>\u00a0and Ron<\/b>\u00a0Johnson<\/b>\u00a0will dominate the conversation. \u2026 There are many obstacles to passing a bill in 11 days, including the limited time for debate, the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has said it can only partially score the bill\u2026 But ultimately, the only question that matters in terms of passing legislation is the one that has haunted Republicans from the beginning: Do they have 50 votes?\u201d\u00a0

<\/i>Patty Murray opens door to state-based solution –\u00a0<\/b>Axios<\/a>: \u201cSen.\u00a0Patty Murray<\/b>\u00a0has agreed to a key demand of Sen.\u00a0Lamar Alexander<\/b>, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which could potentially move bipartisan health care talks forward. Murray has agreed to \u2018significant state flexibility\u2019 in order to reach an agreement, per a senior Democratic aide. The two GOP senators whose votes may matter the most for the latest Affordable Care Act repeal push,\u00a0Lisa Murkowski<\/b>\u00a0and\u00a0John McCain<\/b>, have made it clear that they want health care legislation to be bipartisan. If Murray and Alexander can strike a deal, it would give these holdouts evidence that the two parties can come together on health care. Conversations are continuing, but it remains to be seen how Alexander wants to proceed. \u2018But there\u2019s certainly still a place for those who want a bipartisan agreement on the Republican side to go.\u2019 From a Senate GOP aide: \u2018No agreement yet on a deal that could pass.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Rand Paul: \u2018ObamaCare Lite\u2019 plan too generous –<\/b>\u00a0Fox News Opinion<\/a>: \u201cEven the bill\u2019s authors and proponents, using what I\u2019m sure are rosy numbers, admit that their ObamaCare Lite bill will spend 90 percent of what we currently spend on ObamaCare. Other estimates are closer to 95 percent. \u00a0Either way, did anyone go out to vote so we could repeal only 5 or 10 percent of ObamaCare? \u00a0I didn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jonathan Chait: Democrats would avenge ObamaCare –<\/b>\u00a0New York Magazine<\/a>: \u201cIf Republicans repealed Obamacare. It would make it easier for the left to argue that the program\u2019s compromise structure is a failure, that its markets are inherently susceptible to sabotage by Republican administrations, and that the risk of political capital is worthwhile. And the method used to pass repeal \u2013 a hastily assembled reconciliation bill devoid of serious analysis \u2013 would make fools of the party\u2019s Senate institutionalists. Democrats would be incentivized to pass a sweeping 50-vote Medicare expansion, with the goal of creating as many beneficiaries as possible, as quickly as possible. Heightening the contradictions of the system is a longtime tactic of radicals on the left. How strange to see this very dialectic embraced by the far right.\u201d<\/p>\n

SENATE REPUBLICANS CONSIDERING $1.5 TRILLION TAX CUT\u00a0
<\/b>Axios<\/a>: \u201cSenate Republicans are considering a budget that would allow for $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next ten years,\u00a0the WSJ reports\u00a0citing people familiar with the discussions.\u00a0<\/b>\u2026\u00a0<\/b>Writing a budget is the first step in working on tax legislation and adhering to its guidelines would let a tax bill pass the Senate with a simple majority. Details on the GOP tax plan are due next week. Putting a tax cut in the budget would put off decisions on how to pay for the cuts, the paper says. WSJ reporter Richard Rubin\u00a0says on Twitter\u00a0the budget discussions signal \u2018an unmistakable shift from revenue-neutral tax reform to revenue-losing tax reform.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Defense bill sails through –\u00a0<\/b>WaPo<\/a>: \u201cThe Senate passed its version of a massive defense bill on Monday, setting up negotiations with the House but leaving the most controversial policy issues that lawmakers hoped to address unresolved. Senators voted 89 to 8 to pass the nearly $700 billion bill, which authorizes support for Pentagon programs and combat operations at home and abroad. Five Democrats and three Republicans \u2014 including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman\u00a0Bob Corker<\/b>\u00a0(R-Tenn.) \u2014 refused to back the measure, while defense hawks Sens. Lindsey O. Graham<\/b>\u00a0(R-S.C.),\u00a0Marco Rubio<\/b>\u00a0(R-Fla.) and\u00a0Robert Menendez\u00a0<\/b>(D-N.J.) did not vote. By sheer size, the bill is the most comprehensive piece of legislation Congress grapples with in any given year, apart from dealing with the budget.\u201d

PLAY-BY-PLAY<\/b>\u00a0
Trump on the Federal Reserve could become his economic legacy\u00a0<\/i>–\u00a0LAT<\/a><\/p>\n

GOP governors push fake news site\u00a0<\/i>–\u00a0AP<\/a>

AUDIBLE: OH, SNAP
<\/b>\u201cThe problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.\u201d \u2013\u00a0President Trump addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations.<\/i><\/p>\n

FROM THE BLEACHERS, CONSTITUION DAY EDITION\u00a0
<\/b>[In honor of the observance of Constitution Day on Monday we asked you, dear readers, to offer your suggestions to improve or reform America\u2019s charter. And boy howdy, did you ever! I was impressed not just by the sheer number of responses, but the thoughtfulness, patriotism, decency and intellect that they reflected. I know I say it all the time, but I don\u2019t think there is any readership in America as bright, learned and fundamentally decent as you folks. I count myself lucky not just that we would have subscribers as fine as you, but that I could also call you fellow citizens. I believe that as you read through this small sampling of responses from your fellows, you will be similarly inspired to optimism about our future as a nation.<\/i>]

<\/i><\/b>\u201cThere are, in my opinion, two steps necessary to reclaim our rights as intended for us by the framers.\u00a0First, and simplest, make members of Congress and their staffs subject to all the laws and regulations they pass; no exceptions, waivers or recompense. Second, put term limits on elected federal officials. Being a member of Congress in the framers\u2019 day was a genuine hardship as concerned travel, managing of the family business in absentia and being in dismal D.C. The framers could not have foreseen the wealth, power and privilege that is now associated with continuous public office. Nor did they foresee a class of people with no other skill or ambition but staying in elective office.\u00a0The framers probably thought that without a King, there would be no courtiers (but now the counties abutting D.C. are among the richest in the U.S.).\u201d \u2013\u00a0John Hicks<\/b>, Madison, N.J.<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed note: You are not alone, Mr. Hicks, by a long shot. Term limits were clearly the most popular choice among your fellow readers, and your suggestion for requiring members of Congress to be subject to every law they pass was also high on the list. I\u2019ve been squishy on the subject of term limits for a long time, and there is still much that concerns me about the concept. But, there is also much to commend the idea. What is lacking in the relationship between the branches these days is a strong legislature and I am not sure whether term limits would help empower Congress or not. On one hand, it would thin the ranks of experienced leaders but on the other hand, it would likely goad members into faster action as they sought to make the most of their time.<\/i>]<\/p>\n

\u201cI would propose a greatly reduced congress. Our Framers did not originally use a full time legislative branch. Distance and time wouldn\u2019t permit. Instead they went back home to their own lands and businesses. They were among their communities. And they were heavily invested in the lives of their constituents. To that end I would say that they should meet for three months at the start of a new congress. Timed perhaps with the State of the Union.\u00a0A shortened time period would force them to deal with each other to accomplish what is most pressing, but not enough time to dither about on useless politicking. If an emergency came up, the President along with the Senate Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House could call a special session.\u00a0Otherwise, wait till next year. At least we could keep them from doing too much damage.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Allen Randal<\/i><\/b>, Las Vegas<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: I love this idea, Mr. Randal! I never understand the people who are complaining about Congress not working enough. They\u2019re not building Mustangs in a factory. And it\u2019s not like the government doesn\u2019t have a lot of laws already. There are, of course, things that need to be frequently addressed with changes in technology and culture, but I\u2019m fascinated by your concept. I could see staffs working year round on preparing legislation and hammering out details and in advance of the January arrival of lawmakers for an Epiphany to Easter sprint. Thanks much!<\/i>]<\/p>\n

\u201cAmendment text: Each State, according to the statutes established by each individual State, shall devise and submit a map of Congressional Districts to the U.S. Congress for approval.\u00a0Shorthand: Limits the influence of partisan gerrymandering\u2026 Why: To me, a big reason gets done is because not enough members of Congress are worried about holding onto their seats. If you\u2019re in a safely blue or red district where\u2019s the incentive to make hard choices — the ones that force you to act like an elected leader instead of a taxpayer subsidized yesman or yeswoman?\u201d\u00a0\u2013\u00a0Mike Schiano<\/i><\/b>, Boston<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: I like where your head is at, Mr. Schiano. But I\u2019m not sure members of Congress would do much to improve gerrymandering. I imagine what would happen is majority parties would approve any crazy district that benefitted members of their team and refused even modestly fair offerings for the other guys. It sounds kind of dreadful\u2026 But addressing the composition of districts is something the Framers would have thought more about if they knew what we know now. Gerrymandering doesn\u2019t so much tilt the balance of power in Congress but by making seats safer and safer for one party or the other, it incentivizes radical rhetoric and places a high penalty on bipartisanship. It\u2019s harder to win general elections in better-balanced districts but primaries are much easier. Our gross, dishonest primary process might be greatly helped by a better solution on the drawing of districts.<\/i>]<\/p>\n

\u201cAllow for national vote on hot topics with a\u00a0required 2\/3 vote to adopt. Fashionable topics like immigration, taxation, welfare, disability pay, removal of judges,\u00a0 etc. might be topics that once they fail the congress could get a better idea on actual feelings rather than surveys.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Tom Winter<\/i><\/b>, Steele,\u00a0Mo.<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: Of all that ails American governance in 2017, Mr. Winter, I do not think that insufficient democracy is one of them. The populists push toward more direct democracy has succeeded in the past century in helping to turn representatives and senators into weather vanes, spinning on the breezes of popular opinion. The idea of a republic is that the people empower leaders to make good choices for periods of time and then may choose to either remove or return those leaders based on their performances. Some things, like going to war or paying taxes, are never popular but are still necessary. Other things, like extravagant spending, are always popular but not sustainable. I think it is time we stop expecting so little of our elected leaders and start demanding more of them than just putting a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.<\/i>]<\/p>\n

\u201cSome kind of check\/balance on the Supreme Court. In recent years SCOTUS has become too politically sensitive and has lost its role of being \u2018above\u2019 politics. \u2026 So there should be added a \u2018SCOTUS VETO\u2019 based on a majority of state legislatures voting to negate their decision within 18-24 months of a published decision.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Opher Banarie<\/i><\/b>, Dallas<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: No doubt the Framers foresaw the dangers of an imperial federal court, and many of our Founders were quite agitated about the idea, particularly\u00a0Thomas Jefferson<\/b>. What they might not have anticipated, though, is the degree to which the other two branches would so thoroughly defer to the courts. The Framers imagined constant jousting between co-equal branches. Yes, they hoped that judges would be removed from the pressures of political faction and favor by granting them lifetime appointments, but they did not appoint them to be kings. But that may be changing. The trend among conservative justices, quite explicitly expressed by Chief Justice\u00a0John Roberts<\/b>, has been a return to humility for court that has been grandiose at many times since the 1950s. The new fashion toward judicial restraint even as some admirers on the left side of the activism aisle. It\u2019s pretty clear that with\u00a0Neil Gorsuch\u00a0<\/b>on the bench for what will probably be many decades, the trend is likely to continue.<\/i>]<\/p>\n

\u201cCongress shall make no law imposing any tax on the citizens of the United States unless that tax is imposed on each dollar of every citizen\u2019s income at the same rate. Congress, of course, would define \u2018income\u2019 and set the tax rate, but everything else would remain constant. I hold out the hope that the common desire to \u2018protect\u2019 the poor will force the government to reign in its appetite for tax revenue…\u201d \u2013\u00a0Alan Plumley<\/i><\/b>,\u00a0Clarksville, Md.<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: Mandating a federal flat tax would be a revolutionary move and, as you suggest, Mr. Plumley, it would radically alter the way we think about tax rates. We can\u2019t know what the founders would have said about federal income tax, because they would have never allowed such a thing in the first place, but it\u2019s safe to say that they would have been unhappy with our current arrangement for providing resources to our government.<\/i>]<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cProposed Amendment:\u00a0\u201cThe Congress shall not have the power to require the withholding of personal income taxes from any person employed in the United States.\u201d Why offered:\u00a0 Withholding of income tax is\u00a0the<\/u>\u00a0enabler for unrestrained and wasteful spending by the Federal Government.\u00a0It causes people to become indifferent to the enormous share of their income which the government claims.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Russ L. Kiekhaefer<\/i><\/b>, Midland,\u00a0Mich.<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: This reminds me, Mr. Kiekhaefer, of a similar proposal I have heard that would move tax day to Election Day so that folks would be voting just as they were contemplating how much they paid in taxes. I don\u2019t think you need a constitutional amendment for your idea though, Congress can make that the part of any tax law any time they wanted.<\/i>]\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cThe original [language in the First Amendment barring the establishment of government religion and guaranteeing the right of free expression] was simple and straightforward. We have redefined words to make the amendment mean something other than what was originally written. This proposed amendment is to clarify words and limit the meanings of the words to the original intent. Should someone want additional limits on speech and religion, let them propose and pass their own amendments, but let them not warp the original.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Randy Apon<\/i><\/b>, Seneca, S.C.<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: That establishment clause is a doozy, Mr. Apon. The challenge these days is to separate what are individual expressions versus what expressions of religion carry the weight of the federal government. The president can send a Christmas card or wish people a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanukah or anything else because he is doing it as an individual. Where things get dicey is on the question of laws and policies that deal with religious institutions and people of faith. Courts have come to take a broader view of government support for religious programs in recent years. Government funds now freely flow to religious schools and to charities operating under the banner of an individual faith. Absolutists would say that this constitutes the government establishing religion, for what could be more establishing than the provision of tax payer funds and the imprimatur of the federal government itself. The rebuttal to this is that the government is not endorsing their faith but rather subsidizing good works on which a majority of lawmakers believe are worthwhile. But the real frontiers here have to do with religious liberty and what constitutes expression of faith by individuals. The political fights of the past decade are littered with the wreckage of clashes over conscience exceptions to laws, \u201chate speech\u201d and discrimination. I\u2019m afraid that no matter how clearly we were to reword the First Amendment lawmakers, courts and individuals would continue to struggle with these questions.<\/i>]\u00a0\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cMy new amendment would be to update the second amendment.\u00a0 I would have an amendment that requires anyone who owns a gun to take the proper in person class and also be able to provide and prove you have a safe place for storage.\u00a0 \u2026 This would allow those who really want or feel the need to own a gun to still be able to do so and those who don\u2019t will get weeded out.\u00a0 If the founding fathers had known what kind of weaponry would be developed in the future and how it was to be used I believe they would have worded it differently.\u00a0 They also didn\u2019t know how much money the gun industry would be pumping into propping up their positions and getting favorable laws, but that is for another day.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Jeff Cox<\/i><\/b>,\u00a0<\/b>Norman, Okla.<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: I bet bringing this one up in Norman stirs up plenty of conversation. The Framers really did a double whammy on us with that one, didn\u2019t they? They tell us why citizens should have the right to bear arms \u2013 in order to maintain a militia to protect the country \u2013 but then they tell us that the right is absolute and \u201cshall not be infringed.\u201d What the heck are we supposed to do with that? I imagine that there would be a great deal of popular support for your idea that would, essentially, clarify the argument in favor of the \u201cwell-regulated militia\u201d side of the equation. But I also think that you\u2019d have a hell of a fight on your hands, just as I\u2019m sure many of your neighbors would tell you.<\/i>]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cSenators elected by the state legislators.\u00a0 If we are going to maintain some level of Federalism instead requiring that New York and Boise have the same laws on everything, then we need someone in the Federal Government who represents the States.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Hyrum Hibbert<\/i><\/b>,\u00a0Boise, Idaho<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: Then you and I, Mr. Hibbert, are brothers from another mother! I make no secret of the fact that I believe the 17th<\/sup>\u00a0Amendment set the republic down a perilous path. The reasons given for its enactment were that wealthy and powerful elites could use their influence to corrupt state legislatures and buy Senate seats. Many states at the time of passage were thrilled to lose that responsibility that led to brawls like one at Missouri statehouse involving the a ladder that members were using to climb up and setback the clock to keep the legislative day going. But it seems to me that the needed reforms should have happened on the state level if that was the real concern. As it is, we basically have duplicate federal chambers, although senators are saved from biennial elections and gerrymandered districts. Further insulating members of the Senate from voters will likely return much of the perspective currently lacking, as well as help restore the Senate\u2019s functionality. But another advantage would be that it would increase the value of individual citizens\u2019 vote for their state legislators, which now amount to electoral afterthoughts, at best. As you say, the House would speak for the people while the senate would speak for the states.<\/i>]\u00a0

<\/b><\/i>\u201cI would not propose new changes. I would like to see our legal\/government system adhere to the original intent of the framers. The freedoms promised and the rights put forth in there are truly timeless. We have taken it and distorted what it says, when it really is simple.\u201d \u2013\u00a0Vickie Bonino<\/i><\/b>, Columbus, Mich.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

[Ed. note: I think you win, Ms. Bonino. As they would say in Delbarton, W. Va.: love your heart.<\/i>]\u00a0<\/i>

<\/i>Share your color commentary:<\/b>\u00a0Email us at
HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM<\/a>\u00a0and please make sure to include your name and hometown.<\/p>\n

HIGGINS COULD HAVE TOLD YOU<\/b>\u00a0THIS WOULD HAPPEN<\/b>
WJBK<\/a>: \u201cSaturday night was Star Wars night at Comerica Park but it was a large group of Magnum P.I. impersonators who stole the attention of security. 45 men dressed asThomas Magnum<\/b>, the\u00a0Tom Selleck<\/b>\u00a0iconic character in the 1980s TV show Magnum P.I., were tossed out of the ballpark Saturday. The huge group was at the game for\u00a0Joe Tuccini<\/b>\u2019s bachelor party. The Allen Park resident told FOX 2 that the Tigers told him they were ejected for \u2018catcalling\u2019 but he says that\u2019s not true. \u2026 The group of 45 Magnum P.I.\u2019s – which included a cardboard cutout of Magnum P.I. – were escorted from the park. Tuccini said that they\u2019re asking the Tigers to reimburse them with tickets for next season and to also extend an invite to Selleck, a Tigers fan himself. Selleck wore the Tigers baseball hat along with a Hawaiian shirt in the show that aired for eight seasons\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Chris Stirewalt\u00a0<\/i><\/b>is the politics editor for Fox News.\u00a0Brianna McClelland<\/b>\u00a0contributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up\u00a0<\/i>here<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n

Chris Stirewalt joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in July of 2010 and serves as politics editor based in Washington, D.C. Additionally, he authors the daily Fox News Halftime Report political news note and co-hosts the hit podcast, Perino Stirewalt: I’ll Tell You What. He also is the host of Power Play, a feature video series on FoxNews.com. Stirewalt makes frequent appearances on network programs, including America\u2019s Newsroom, Special Report with Bret Baier and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He also provides expert political analysis for FNC\u2019s coverage of state, congressional and presidential elections.<\/p>\n

Article source: http:\/\/feeds.foxnews.com\/~r\/foxnews\/politics\/~3\/zVN-rnFVLF8\/mueller-v-trump-is-about-to-blow-up.html<\/a>\r\n<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mueller working with NY attorney general on Manafort probe Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton discusses reports that Robert Mueller is working with the New York attorney general on a Manafort probe. **Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up\u00a0here.** On the roster:\u00a0Mueller v. Trump is about to blow up\u00a0 – Trump preaches […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[84],"class_list":["post-91892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-political","tag-political"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91892","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91892"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91892\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usa.timesofnews.com\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}