Header Image - Warren Truss

Brennan Bobbie

“The Mooch” Vows to Thwart Trump’s Expectations of Becoming GOP’s 2020 Presidential Candidate

by Brennan Bobbie

Former loyal Trump supporter and short-time White House aide, Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci intensifies his call for a different Republican presidential candidate in the 2020 Presidential Elections. In an interview with Yahoo Finance’s “On the Move,” he said that the mounting evidence gathered from the impeachment inquiry, clearly indicates that the incumbent U.S. president is a “felon acting lawlessly’ and therefore not fit to run for re-election.”

Actually, “The Mooch” has been actively speaking out against a Trump re-election for months now, in order to keep up his verbal attacks against Donald Trump. A financier and the founder, as well as managing co-partner of Skybridge Capital, Scaramucci says that he intends to spend the next 13 months explaining to people, particularly in the swing states and specifically to women Trump supporters, why Trump should not be nominated as the GOP presidential candidate for the 2020 election.

Will “The Mooch” Support a Democratic Presidentiable if His Efforts Fail?

When asked if despite his efforts, Trump still gets to be nominated as the Republican candidate, will he support and vote for a Democrat instead ? The Skybridge Capital financier simply said he will continue working against a Trump re-election because the latter should no longer be allowed to run the country in the next four (4) years.

Scaramucci asserts that he is a Republican and is not entertaining thoughts that Donald Trump will still be GOP’s presidential candidate come November 2020 election. He foresees with conviction that within the next three months, Republican Congressmen and Senators will start throwing in the towel. They will soon face the reality that they cannot win in the next elections if they will continue to support Trump as GOP’s presidential candidate.

The Mooch’s Talking Points against a Trump Re-Election

Anthony Scaramucci plans to launch a political action in order to destroy the White House administration’s tactic of muddling facts with lies. He will form a committee that will take on the tasks of clearly explaining to Trump voters, particularly in the suburban areas why Trump should not be re-elected as President of the United States.

Aside from stating that Trump’s actions of asking the President of Ukraine to do him a personal favor in exchange for a Congressionally-approved financial aid, as deeply troubling, the former White House political advisor has voiced other reasons.

He calls Trump a bully-in-chief who has been firing up people to lean left and right with his constant Twitter feeds, instead of actually taking an active hand in running the country’s affairs. He cites the Charlotesville white supremacist catastrophe, the verbal assaults against the four (4) women House Representatives and the El Paso shooting as examples of how Trump has been driving divisiveness among American citizens.

“The Mooch” is completely convinced that Trump is unhinging, showing signs of a steady decline. Scaramucci says that Trump is having a hard time recalling people’s names; citing the president’s reference to Mike Pence as Mike Pounce as the most recent example.

Scaramucci is likely to beef up the talking points against a Donald Trump re-election, once the House proceeds with the release of witnesses’ testimonies, and with the public hearing.

Another Long-Time White House Staff “Throws Trump Under the Bus” by Breaching Confidentiality Agreement

by Brennan Bobbie

Madeleine Westerhout, Donald Trump’s long-time personal executive assistant, finds herself out of a job after sharing intimate personal information about Trump’s family during a dinner with news reporters. Although Westerhout claimed her comments were made off-the-record, she is still bound by a confidentiality act stipulated under the Hatch Act.

 

Later, a reporter who said Madeleine did not state that her remarks about Trump’s family were to be treated as off-the-record, divulged the details of what transpired at the dinner. The executive assistant’s fallout from the Trump administration only marks the POTUS’ troubles with the extensive information leaks that have been coming out of the White House. The incident also makes Westerhout the sixth White House staff has breached the Hatch Act, since 2018.

Madeline’s departure also highlights the series of resignations currently besetting the Trump Administration.

What Personal Information Did Madeleine Westerhout Share with Reporters?

Apparently, Westerhout had one drink too many during the dinner that she and White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley attended at the Embassy Suites where reporters stayed to cover Trump’s visit. Such dinners are said to be common but are supposed to be off-the-record as far as any conversations that may have taken place during the gathering.

According to political news website Politico, Westerhout said that Trump will not be able to pick out Tiffany if ever she becomes part of the many faces in a crowd. CNN also reported her claim that she (Madeleine) enjoys a stronger relationship with Trump than Tiffany or even Ivanka. Another CNN report said Madeleine told the group that Trump prefers not to be photographed with Tiffany, because he thinks is youngest daughter is “overweight.”

 

 

Still, Trump who learned of Madeleine’s revelations to reporters said he understands why the incident happened, although it does not mean she is off the hook. He later tweeted that since Madeleine is a very good person, he does not see any reason to enforce full punishment over her violation of her confidentiality agreement with the White House.

Court of Appeals Upholds Lower Court’s Decision to Deny Emergency Appropriation of Funds for Border Walls

by Brennan Bobbie

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling that upholds a lower court’s decision to deny the Trump administration the right to appropriate funds outside of Congressional approval. The appeal to reverse the lower court’s stay order was put forward by the Justice Department, on behalf of the Trump administration. That way, the latter can move forward in a supposed emergency need to reinforce the border walls located in Arizona, California, and New Mexico for security reasons.

The 3-judge panel of the Appeals Court though was not unanimous in arriving at the decision. Judge N. Randy Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, disagreed saying that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Southern Border Communities Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union, is an approach that is contradictory to the basic fundamentals of judicial review. His opinion is that the majority of the panel members created a constitutional issue where none had existed. Mainly because the complainants who obtained the injunction, have no right to take part in what is actually a dispute between the U.S. president and Congress.

The dispute refers to Donald Trump’s insistence on spending as much as $8 billion for the construction and reinforcement of the U.S.-Mexico border walls, an amount that exceeded the $1.375 billion approved by Congress for border barriers. Congress denied his initial request for a $5.7 billion budget for wall-building this fiscal year, Trump’s insistence and disapproval of the national budget for the fiscal year led to a 5-week, partial shutdown of government offices and agencies.

Although Trump later relented by finally approving the national budget in order to lift the shutdown, he pursued the matter by calling a state of national emergency. In doing so, he gained the executive power to appropriate the budgets of other departments for the perceived emergency purpose of enhancing the security of the country via the border walls.

How the 9th District Court of Appeals Ruled

The two other members of the 3-judge panel, Judge Richard Clifton and Judge Michelle Friedland, wrote in a 75-page order that president Trump’s attempt to transfer Defense Department construction funds amounting to $2.5 billion in order to pursue and build the border wall project beyond what was appropriated by Congress, appeared as a clear violation of federal laww.

The Constitution delegates to Congress, the power to make decisions on how the government is to spend taxpayers’ money. More so where Congress added language that specifically states flexibility of budget does not include use for purposes previously denied by lawmakers. Judge Clifton and Friedland explained that

“Congress did not appropriate money to build the border walls Defendants (the Trump administration) seek to build here. Presumably, Congress decided such construction at this time was not in the public interest. It is not for us (the judicial branch) to reach a different conclusion.”

Moreover, Judges Clifton and Friedland cited the likelihood of the Trump administration’s violation of Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which disallows drawing from the Treasury for purposes other that those appropriated by law.— the latter being the national budget that he initially refused to approve.

Scroll Up