Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1152577)	7/26/2019 8:41:38 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574051

Not quite. You forgot this little quote from your article: Google disclosed last week that it had stopped work on a censored Chinese search engine, codenamed Project Dragonfly, a product designed to block results related to topics banned by the Chinese government. Most Google employees only discovered the company’s work on the government contract after The Intercept published a report revealing the work, and hundreds of Googlers later signed a petition advocating for Google to drop the project. That little tidbit was the entire issue. Looks like Peter Thiel's alarm forced Google to take quick action to stop their treasonous work with the Chinese. So when Trump looked into it, they'd already dropped it like the hot potato that it was. If it were me, I'd still have the FBI or maybe another more trustworthy organization look into Google, but not sure why Trump is willing to trust Google. I wouldn't.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1152577)	7/26/2019 10:38:40 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574051

Supreme Court says Trump can proceed with plan to spend military funds for border wall construction U.S. military personnel assist as Border Patrol agents take asylum seekers into custody at the border with Mexico in July. (Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters) By Robert Barnes July 26 at 9:53 PM A split Supreme Court said Friday night that the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the president’s wall project along the southern border. The court’s conservatives set aside a lower-court ruling for the Sierra Club and a coalition of border communities that said reallocating Defense Department money would violate federal law. Friday’s unsigned ruling came in response to an emergency filing from the administration during the court’s summer recess. The majority said the government “made a sufficient showing at this stage” that private groups may not be the proper plaintiffs to challenge the transfer of money. The court’s action is a stay of the injunction issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on a 2-to-1 vote, and the litigation continues. The administration wants to finalize contracts for the work before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. ADVERTISING Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh voted to lift the 9th Circuit injunction. Three justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — would have left it in place. Justice Stephen G. Breyer proposed a compromise to which no one signed on: allow the government to finalize contracts for the project but not begin construction. In a tweet after the court’s announcement, President Trump declared the development a “Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!” The groups opposing the wall construction noted that the litigation continues. “This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall,” Dror Ladin, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, said in a statement. The ACLU represented the groups. “Our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), reacting via Twitter on Friday night, said the high court’s decision allowing the Trump administration “to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed.” Crews install new border wall sections in southern California. (Gregory Bull/AP) [ Appeals court upholds freeze on using Defense funds for border wall] In a decision earlier this month, a 9th Circuit panel noted that a stalemate between Congress and Trump over the issue prompted the longest government shutdown in history. The judges reasoned that Congress made its intentions clear by allocating only about $1.4 billion for enhanced border protection. The appeals court said the public interest was “best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction.” After Congress’s decision this year, Trump announced plans to use more than $6 billion allocated for other purposes to fund the wall, which was the signature promise of his presidential campaign Environmentalists and the Southern Border Communities Coalition immediately filed suit to block the transfer of funds. Democrats in the House of Representatives filed a brief supporting them. U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the Supreme Court that the 9th Circuit ruling was wrong. “The sole basis for the injunction — that the Acting Secretary exceeded his statutory authority in transferring the funds — rests on a misreading of the statutory text,” Francisco wrote. He was referring to Patrick M. Shanahan, who was acting defense secretary at the time. Francisco said private groups may not challenge the transfer. He added that even if they could, their “interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.” Justice Department spokesman Alexei Woltornist said Friday: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls.” Even though the Supreme Court has scattered for its summer recess, the court continues to consider emergency motions and makes decisions on the basis of briefs. The majority’s reasoning was scant in the short order it released, but it seemed to agree with Francisco about the law governing transfers of money within the government. “Among the reasons” for granting the administration’s request, the opinion said, “is that the government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance” with federal law. [ Pentagon will shift an additional $1.5 billion to help fund Trump’s border wall] The money was transferred from Defense Department personnel funds in response to a request from the Department of Homeland Security. Federal law allows such transfers for “unforeseen” reasons and for expenditures not previously “denied by the Congress.” The administration contends that Congress did not reject the specific expenditures at issue, which would fund projects in California, New Mexico and Arizona. The challengers told the Supreme Court that Congress was clear in its intent. “Congress recently considered, and rejected, the same argument defendants [the government] make here: that a border wall is urgently needed to combat drugs,” said the brief from lawyers at the ACLU. “If defendants were nonetheless permitted to obligate taxpayer funds and commence construction, the status quo would be radically and irrevocably altered.” The brief from the U.S. House of Representatives agreed. Breyer, the only justice to write in detail about the issue, said the case “raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions.” But he said the majority’s decision may allow the government “to begin construction of a border barrier that would cause irreparable harm to the environment” and to the challengers. “The government’s only response to this claim of irreparable harm is that, if respondents ultimately prevail, the border barrier may be taken down (with what funding, the government does not say). But this is little comfort because it is not just the barrier, but the construction itself (and presumably its later destruction) that contributes to respondents’ injury.” After the 9th Circuit’s July 3 ruling, Francisco moved quickly to ask the Supreme Court to dissolve the lower court’s injunction. He asked the justices to rule by Friday so that the Defense Department would have time to finalize construction contracts before the end of the fiscal year. Otherwise, he said, “the remaining unobligated funds will become unavailable.” The challengers said the money already was unavailable. The brief filed by the House said the money would not be lost but would simply go back into the treasury, where the administration would again be free to make its request to Congress. It said there was no rush. “The administration has apparently completed only 1.7 of the 95 miles of border fencing Congress approved and appropriated funds for in fiscal year 2018,” it said. The case is Trump v. Sierra Club, et al. 4.3k Comments Local politics email alerts Important breaking news alerts about D.C.-area politicians and governments. By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Robert Barnes Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow Others cover stories. We uncover them. Limited time offer: Get unlimited digital access for less than $1/week. Try 1 month for $1 Send me this offer Already a subscriber? Sign in PAID PROMOTED STORIES Quiz: Even Teachers Can’t Name 10/10 Of These Historic Figures Offbeat [Gallery] 27 Animals That Live Multiple Centuries, And Longer Science 101 [PICS] How Popular is New Jersey Compared to Other States? Forbes [Gallery] The Real Reason You Don't Hear About Susan Boyle Anymore PostFun [Pics] These Photos Show What It's Really Like To Live In Russia Direct Expose [Pics] Iconic 'Forrest Gump' Scene Has One Ridiculous Flaw No One Noticed Collider Recommended by Most Read Politics 1 Supreme Court says Trump can proceed with plan to spend military funds for border wall construction 2 Meet the man who created the fake presidential seal — a former Republican fed up with Trump 3 Adviser, son-in-law and hidden campaign hand: How Kushner is trying to help Trump win in 2020 4 Rep. Martha Roby is second House GOP woman to decide not to seek reelection 5 Sweden caught in Trump crossfire over arrest of rapper A$AP Rocky Latest episode Not your neurotypical romance novel: The appeal of Helen Hoang Listen22:13 Unparalleled reporting. Expert insight. Clear analysis. Everything you’ve come to expect from the newsroom of The Post -- for your ears. <div class="rr-subscription subscription signup promo" data-promo="rr_d_am_bb_s0619" data-body="Limited time offer: Get unlimited digital access for less than $1/week." data-headline="Others cover stories. We uncover them." data-tid="usw_submod_" data-offer_text="Try 1 month for $1" data-us_only="false" data-location="rr"> <div class="rr-subscription subscription signup promo" data-promo="rr_d_am_bb_s0619" data-body="Limited time offer: Get unlimited digital access for less than $1/week." data-headline="Others cover stories. We uncover them." data-tid="usw_submod_" data-offer_text="Try 1 month for $1" data-us_only="false" data-location="rr"> Others cover stories. We uncover them. Limited time offer: Get unlimited digital access for less than $1/week. Try 1 month for $1 Send me this offer Already a subscriber? Sign in Local politics email alerts Important breaking news alerts about D.C.-area politicians and governments. washingtonpost.com © 1996-2019 The Washington Post Help Policies and Standards Terms of Service Privacy Policy Print Products Terms of Sale Digital Products Terms of Sale Submissions and Discussion Policy RSS Terms of Service Ad Choices Contact Us