Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have deleted tweets that promoted an upcoming Wednesday afternoon hearing on “kids in cages” after being called out for using Obama-era images of migrants in detention to highlight current conditions at the border.

“Last week, members of our committee visited a detention center at the southern border and discovered grotesque treatment of children,” the first tweet, posted Tuesday afternoon, said. “This week, we are examining the inhumane treatment of the children in these detention centers.”

But the tweet included a photograph taken by The Associated Press in 2014, during the Obama administration, showing migrants in detention in Arizona. The Trump campaign flagged the soon-deleted tweet and noted the image comes from a time when current Democratic presidential primary front-runner Joe Biden was vice president.

“House Democrats are promoting their 'civil rights' hearing on ‘kids in cages’ and ‘inhumane treatment’ with a photo from 2014, when Joe Biden was Vice President,” the tweet read. “So dishonest!”

According to The Daily Caller, House Democrats then put up a new tweet with a different photograph -- also, it turns out, from the Obama administration years. That tweet was soon deleted as well, after it was noticed by their Republican counterparts on the committee.

[Unregistered]

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have deleted tweets that promoted an upcoming Wednesday afternoon hearing on “kids in cages” after being called out for using Obama-era images of migrants in detention to highlight current conditions at the border.

“Last week, members of our committee visited a detention center at the southern border and discovered grotesque treatment of children,” the first tweet, posted Tuesday afternoon, said. “This week, we are examining the inhumane treatment of the children in these detention centers.”

But the tweet included a photograph taken by The Associated Press in 2014, during the Obama administration, showing migrants in detention in Arizona. The Trump campaign flagged the soon-deleted tweet and noted the image comes from a time when current Democratic presidential primary front-runner Joe Biden was vice president.

“House Democrats are promoting their 'civil rights' hearing on ‘kids in cages’ and ‘inhumane treatment’ with a photo from 2014, when Joe Biden was Vice President,” the tweet read. “So dishonest!”

According to The Daily Caller, House Democrats then put up a new tweet with a different photograph -- also, it turns out, from the Obama administration years. That tweet was soon deleted as well, after it was noticed by their Republican counterparts on the committee.

Good one !

Is this like the time the cons used a picture of the NY State Senate to claim Dems in house were being disrespectful?

I think it is in which case 😢 😭 😢 more little ❄️.

[Unregistered]

President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were once the only other attendees at a party with roughly two dozen women at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, a former Trump associate told The New York Times.

In 1992, the women were flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that Trump had requested, the former Trump associate, George Houraney, told The Times.

"At the very first party, I said, 'Who's coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming,'" Houraney said. "It was him and Epstein."

He added: "I said: 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs. You're telling me it's you and Epstein?'"

Houraney also apparently once warned Trump about Epstein.

"Look, Donald, I know Jeff really well, I can't have him going after younger girls," Houraney recalled telling Trump. "He said: 'Look I'm putting my name on this. I wouldn't put my name on it and have a scandal.'"

Houraney had a falling out with Trump after his girlfriend accused Trump of making unwanted sexual advances in the early 1990s.

A quote Trump gave about a decade after that reported 1992 party in which Trump spoke highly of Epstein has been circulating widely amid the new charges.

"He's a lot of fun to be with," Trump told New York magazine in 2002. "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Trump has since distanced himself from Epstein, who faces sex-trafficking charges from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he faces a maximum sentence of 45 years in prison. The charging document alleges Epstein "sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in Manhattan, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among other locations."

On Monday, Epstein appeared in court and pleaded not guilty.

The White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, said Trump had not had contact with Epstein "in years and years and years."

"And he, like everyone else, sees these charges, the description of these charges against Epstein, as completely unconscionable and obviously criminal," Conway added. "Disgusting, really."

Trump on Tuesday told reporters Epstein was unavoidable as a prominent figure in the Palm Beach community: "I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you."

[Unregistered]

Supreme Court says that there was no legitimate justification for adding the citizenship question, give me an acceptable justification. So what happens?

The administration tries to replace all of the lawyers who couldn't lie enough for the administration without being disbarred. That attempt failed. So what does he do now? Issue a proclamation as a king would to add the question in spite of what the highest court in the land said.

This is scary stuff. More scary is that republicans will be just fine with this banana republic maneuver. Or should I say, Putinesque maneuver. Really unbelievable stuff happening in our country with the support of the republican party.

[Unregistered]

Supreme Court says that there was no legitimate justification for adding the citizenship question, give me an acceptable justification. So what happens?

The administration tries to replace all of the lawyers who couldn't lie enough for the administration without being disbarred. That attempt failed. So what does he do now? Issue a proclamation as a king would to add the question in spite of what the highest court in the land said.

This is scary stuff. More scary is that republicans will be just fine with this banana republic maneuver. Or should I say, Putinesque maneuver. Really unbelievable stuff happening in our country with the support of the republican party.

Canada has had the question on their census form since the early 1900s.

[Unregistered]

Canada has had the question on their census form since the early 1900s.

Well that changes everything. I’m sure the Supreme Court wouldn’t have ruled the way they did if they had known that.

[Unregistered]

Canada has had the question on their census form since the early 1900s.

Correct me if I am wrong but Canada is a constitutional MONARCHY with a parliament , prime minister , etc , in contrast to our system where the executive has more power.

So, when like in Canada, everyone can get aligned and agree and execute it legally, FINE, but , we cannot do it by executive OVERREACH.

Why didn’t you change / pass the relevant stuff when you:

1) had the house
2) had the senate
3) had the WH
4) had the SC?

I’ll tell you why. You couldn’t craft it correctly THEN, so now
Going to try a bully end run and go “look at Canada”

OK.

Go live under a constitutional monarchy there.

You Cons are absurd

[Unregistered]

Jeffrey Epstein claimed he introduced President Trump to wife Melania as it is revealed the two men were the only guests at a party with '28 young swimsuit models' at Mar-a-Lago

[Unregistered]

It's OK to use Canada when it's convenient for your example, but not OK when it's not convenient.

Whoever used Canada is a rookie. You don't know the rules on here.

[Unregistered]

It's OK to use Canada when it's convenient for your example, but not OK when it's not convenient.

Whoever used Canada is a rookie. You don't know the rules on here.

Whoever used Canada couldn't come up with a better justification for this unbelievable misconduct. They can't for the life of them justify it. Just give it a few hours until the taking points/justification from Fox are aired.

[Unregistered]

Whoever used Canada couldn't come up with a better justification for this unbelievable misconduct. They can't for the life of them justify it. Just give it a few hours until the taking points/justification from Fox are aired.

Correct. Fox usually issues them around 11:00. The liberal gang get up much earlier in the morning and get theirs out quicker.

[Unregistered]

Correct. Fox usually issues them around 11:00. The liberal gang get up much earlier in the morning and get theirs out quicker.

Fox and Trump are busy honing their talking points all morning. WH records show on many days he saunters down to the oval office around 11, then of course breaks for lunch noon-ish.

[Unregistered]

Fox and Trump are busy honing their talking points all morning. WH records show on many days he saunters down to the oval office around 11, then of course breaks for lunch noon-ish.

Makes sense. Probably why there is always a tweetstorm in the middle of the night. Have hours and hours of liberal nonsense to catch up on.

[Unregistered]

Correct me if I am wrong but Canada is a constitutional MONARCHY with a parliament , prime minister , etc , in contrast to our system where the executive has more power.

So, when like in Canada, everyone can get aligned and agree and execute it legally, FINE, but , we cannot do it by executive OVERREACH.

Why didn’t you change / pass the relevant stuff when you:

1) had the house
2) had the senate
3) had the WH
4) had the SC?

I’ll tell you why. You couldn’t craft it correctly THEN, so now
Going to try a bully end run and go “look at Canada”

OK.

Go live under a constitutional monarchy there.

You Cons are absurd

The point, obviously lost in your fog of ignorance, is that it has never been questioned.

The entire argument by Democrats that it is " racial" is exactly the same reason they give for almost everything they may not agree with. We heard it for 8 years while Obama was President, and we still here it today from Michelle. As a mater of fact, she can't say enough about it. It comes up nearly every time she opens her mouth./

[Unregistered]

The point, obviously lost in your fog of ignorance, is that it has never been questioned.

The entire argument by Democrats that it is " racial" is exactly the same reason they give for almost everything they may not agree with. We heard it for 8 years while Obama was President, and we still here it today from Michelle. As a mater of fact, she can't say enough about it. It comes up nearly every time she opens her mouth./

See, the typical response. Can't justify this totalitarian act so why not blame Obama. You can do better than that, can't you? Justify the president overruling the Supreme Court. Go ahead. And please try not to use Clinton or Obama in your response.