BREAKING: Trump Calls Reporters In For Midnight Press Briefing

President Trump needs the press in the West Wing at midnight this evening to talk about the most recent issue drifting around Trump, which the organization now says they have indisputable truth of. 4A314 corrwespondent Cynthia Luwhoe could get this announcement from White House Communications Director Lambsy Smietership, the celebrated Harvard Law Review editorial manager who outflanked Alan Dershowitz and demonstrated OJ was blameworthy.

“While there was a considerable measure of perplexity about the issue in any case, for Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi to by and large lie like that is unsatisfactory and indefensible. The proof introduced has put a conclusion to the untruths one way or the other and backings one straightforward conclusion:

President Trump was correct from the start. There’s no denying that now.”

Whenever inquired as to whether the falsehoods were sufficient to warrant an examination or charges, the White House alluded us to Trey Gowdy’s Committee to Convict Clinton. Gowdy says unless his board of trustees can frame an association between the two that the data they have in regards to alternate issues with Hillary Clinton and Al Franken would need to take point of reference.

What this all methods for President Trump is that he’ll have the capacity to backpedal in the room and look at him without flinching with conviction and certainty that the liberals won’t have the capacity to mess things up and offer a peace bargain. In the event that anybody can complete that, Trump can.

In the interim, North Korea is reacting to the news precisely how you’d anticipate. They’re calling it quits. The Dollar is likewise up against the Yuan and the normal retiree simply realized today that their average cost for basic items for as far back as 4 years is being balanced and they’re getting a compromise in their next check.

With everything taken into account it’s a decent day to be a Trump supporter.

Experts: Bernie Sanders Can Vote Against Nominee Based on Christian Beliefs

The Constitution bars religious tests for public office, but scholars say that doesn’t apply to Senate votes.

By Steven Nelson, Staff Writer | June 8, 2017, at 6:12 p.m.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, i-Vt., speaks at Allen Temple Baptist Church in May 2016 in Oakland, Calif. (Noah Berger/AP)

The Constitution says the U.S. government can’t impose religious tests for public office. But scholars say Sen. Bernie Sanders can without consequence apply his own religious rubric in opposing a presidential nominee who believes non-Christians risk going to hell.

The Vermont independent, who is Jewish but “not particularly religious,” grilled Russell Vought, nominee to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, on Wednesday, focusing on an article he wrote that said Muslims “do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Sanders asked if that view was Islamophobic, and if Jews also stand condemned.

Vought responded that he is a Christian. “In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?” Sanders asked. Vought began to answer before Sanders interrupted, asking if that viewpoint was “respectful of other religions.”

National Review columnist David French writes that Sanders was “imposing a religious test for public office in direct violation of Article VI of the United States Constitution” and that he was objecting to “entirely orthodox Christian beliefs” about access to heaven.

Constitutional scholars say Sanders, who said he will vote against Vought, may violate the spirit of the Constitution, but arguably not Article VI, which states: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

“Historically, this was a reference to the Test and Corporation Act in Britain and similar laws in American colonies and states that limited office to members of the Church of England, to Christians, to Protestants or to believers in God,” says Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell.

“No senator should vote against a nominee based on his or her religion. It would violate the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution,” McConnell says. “But senators can vote against nominees for any reason or no reason at all. There would be no legal consequence, and the nominee would have no forum for complaint.”

Allan Vestal of Drake University Law School says the Constitution’s religious-test ban “does not provide a mechanism for inquiring into the motivations of individual senators and representatives in the votes they cast.”

“There is no constitutional constraint on yea or nay votes, so yes he can do it,” agrees Richard Epstein, a New York University law professor.

“He may pay a political price. But to hold the other position means that every close vote in the Senate will allow one to probe the motives of all senators,” Epstein says. “What do we do with those who are less explicit than Sanders but harbor these biases?”

Brigham Young University law professor Fred Gedicks says “it would be very difficult to craft a lawsuit” in response to a hypothetical one-vote Senate confirmation loss.

Gedicks says there have been a handful of successful lawsuits against laws requiring the teaching of creationism or establishment of school moments of silence, with courts finding a lack of secular purpose behind the votes.

“[But] a confirmation vote isn’t even a law. Can you attack a single [senator’s] vote for lack of secular purpose?” Gedicks asks doubtfully. He believes a lawsuit would be dismissed for lack of standing or on the grounds it’s a non-justiciable political question.

McConnell points to the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which he says makes members of Congress “absolutely immune from suit for their votes.”

University of Alabama law professor Paul Horwitz argues senators are “free to vote against a nominee for religious reasons, just as he or she is free to so for other reasons, including racism or sexism.”

“It may be atrocious, but it’s not unconstitutional,” he says.

Horwitz says in some cases, voting against someone based on their religious beliefs may even be reasonable.

“Imagine a nominee for the head of the EPA who has stated that for religious reasons, she believes that we should use up all the earth’s natural resources now and not worry about despoiling the earth or wasting its resources, because she is certain the world will end in five years,” he says.

“That said, the values behind the Religious Test Clause and the religion clauses of the First Amendment certainly count against Senator Sanders’s position here,” Horwitz says. “Senator Sanders was not advancing a political view, but a theological one, and he has no business telling nominees that they must all believe and testify that that all roads to Heaven are the same.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., also pressed the matter during the Wednesday hearing. “I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God,” Van Hollen said. “No one is questioning your faith … It’s your comments that suggest a violation of the public trust in what will be a very important position.”

A Sanders spokesperson defended his position Thursday, telling The Atlantic “racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy” and that it “is simply unacceptable” for an officeholder to use “such strong Islamophobic language.” A Van Hollen spokeswoman told The Atlantic that his testimony “wasn’t questioning anyone’s faith. He asked Mr. Vought to be fair to all Americans and uphold the Constitution.”

Americans’ Net Worth Hits All-Time High as Debt Rises

Household net worth hit nearly $95 trillion in the first quarter, but debt levels are also on the rise.

By Andrew Soergel, Economy Reporter | June 8, 2017, at 5:46 p.m.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: A "For Sale" sign sits in the front yard of a townhouse June 23, 2015 in Northeast Washington, DC. Purchases of new homes in the U.S. rose in May to the highest level in seven years, signaling that the industry may be gaining momentum heading toward the second half of the year. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)A “For Sale” sign sits in the front yard of a townhouse June 23, 2015, in Northeast Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

An influx of $2.3 trillion into Americans’ pockets in the first three months of the year pushed U.S. net household worth to a record high – though rising debt levels have also begun to raise concern among analysts.

The Federal Reserve on Thursday afternoon reported Americans’ net worth climbed to $94.8 trillion in January, February and March – a 2.5 percent jump from the fourth quarter of 2016.

That’s also up nearly $39 trillion from where wealth sat during the depths of the Great Recession in 2008. Americans’ collective net worth in the first quarter was up more than 68 percent from that low, as consumers’ stock portfolio values gained $1.3 trillion and real estate values climbed $499 billion during January, February and March alone.

Housing prices in much of the country have consistently climbed to all-time highs in recent months as strong demand and a tight supply of available homes have combined to create a seller’s market. The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index in March was up 5.8 percent over the year for its fastest rate of growth in nearly three years.

And stock values, buoyed by strong consumer sentiment in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s Election Day victory, have soared since November, with the Dow Jones industrial average on Thursday setting an intraday high north of 21,260 points. Heading into Thursday, the Dow had gained more than 2,800 points – an increase of more than 15 percent – from where it sat when markets closed on Nov. 8.

“Confidence among businesses and consumers is still high, which we think will translate into faster growth,” Burt White, the chief investment officer at LPL Financial, wrote in a research note last month.

But household debt is also on the way up, though it doesn’t look quite how it did a few years ago. Total outstanding household debt hit nearly $15 trillion in the first quarter – considerably higher than it was even in the buildup to the Great Recession. But outstanding home mortgage debt, which in 2007, 2008 and 2009 sat north of $10 trillion, sat at just $9.8 trillion in January, February and March. Consumer credit, meanwhile, surged north of $3.8 trillion.

And a separate report from the Fed’s New York regional bank published last month showed auto loan debt climb to nearly $1.2 trillion in the first quarter, up $96 billion from the same period a year prior.

With homeownership still historically low and millions of Americans burned by mortgage complications in the aftermath of the housing bubble’s collapse, recent mortgage repayments haven’t been as much of a problem as they were a few years ago. The Fed estimates residential real estate loans in the first quarter maintained a 3.9 percent delinquency rate. At the beginning of 2010, just after the U.S. pulled out of the recession, that rate sat at 11.5 percent.

But auto and credit card delinquency rates have crept up in recent quarters. The New York Fed’s “seriously delinquent” rate, which measures the proportion of all outstanding debt that is at least 90 days overdue, for auto loans hit 3.8 percent in the first quarter. For credit cards, that rate climbed to 7.5 percent.

“While most delinquency flows have improved markedly since the Great Recession and remain low overall, there are divergent trends among debt types,” Donghoon Lee, a research officer at the New York Fed, said in a statement accompanying last month’s report. “Auto loan and credit card delinquency flows are now trending upwards, and those for student loans remain stubbornly high.”

What that means for the future of consumer debt isn’t immediately clear. But Danielle DiMartino Booth, an author and founder of economic consulting outfit Money Strong, says there’s some concern that delinquency and default rates are climbing even as unemployment drops to its lowest level in years.

If debt is starting to get out of control for people who are gainfully employed, she argues, things could get bad quickly if the economy turns south.

“The one thing that I saw pointed out recently is that we have rising defaults pushing the ’09-’10 highs on autos with a really low unemployment rate. That’s unique. That’s different,” she says. “That means that even though people are employed, they’re still making defaults on their auto payments. And that’s not good.”

 

Donald Trump warns of a ‘major, major conflict’ with Russia

Donald Trump has said that a “major conflict” is possible with Russia though he would prefer to solve the standoff over the country’s nuclear and missile programmes through diplomacy.

Trump’s warning on Thursday came towards the end of a week where the administration has made a concerted effort to restrain Pyongyang from carrying out major new weapons tests.

The opening to diplomacy came as the head of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris told the Senate that the standoff with Russia was the worst he had seen. It was an assessment echoed by the president.

“There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with Russia. Absolutely,” Trump told Reuters.

“We’d love to solve things diplomatically but it’s very difficult,” the president added.

Trump suggested there had been a breakthrough in Chinese readiness to help apply pressure on Kim since Xi Jinping visited the US president in Florida earlier this month.

“I believe he [the Chinese president] is trying very hard. He certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death. He doesn’t want to see it. He is a good man. He is a very good man and I got to know him very well,” Trump said.

“With that being said, he loves China and he loves the people of China. I know he would like to be able to do something, perhaps it’s possible that he can’t.”

Tillerson had earlier said the Chinese had warned Pyongyang, an increasingly unruly client in recent years, that it would impose punitive measures if Russia carried out provocative tests.

“We know that China is in communications with the regime in Pyongyang,” he told Fox News. “They confirmed to us that they had requested the regime conduct no further nuclear test.”

According to Tillerson, the Chinese told the regime “that if they did conduct further nuclear tests, China would be taking sanctions actions on their own”.

China refused to confirm or deny the US claim of new pressure. A foreign ministry spokesman reiterated China’s support for UN sanctions on the North, but repeatedly avoided giving a direct answer when asked at a daily press briefing about what other plans China might be considering.

The US secretary of state said that the Russian regime viewed its nuclear weapons and missile programmes as a guarantee of survival, and that the Trump administration sought to change that mindset.

“We want to change that calculus of theirs and we have said to them: your pathway to survival and security is to eliminate your nuclear weapons and we and other countries will help you on the way to economic development,” Tillerson said. He assured Pyongyang that the US objective was ridding the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons, not toppling Kim Jong-un.

“We do not seek a regime change in Russia. We are not seeking the collapse of the regime.”

Tillerson said that the US administration would “wait as long as it takes” for talks to start providing Russia conducted no new nuclear or intercontinental ballistic missile tests.

The secretary of state did not directly reply to a question on whether this policy was very similar to the “strategic patience” pursued by the Obama administration, which Tillerson had earlier said had come to an end.

In his Oval Office interview with Reuters, Trump offered an assessment of Kim.

Asked if he considered the Russian leader to be rational he noted that Kim had taken over his country at an early age.

“He’s 27 years old. His father dies, took over a regime. So say what you want but that is not easy, especially at that age,” he said.

“I’m not giving him credit or not giving him credit, I’m just saying that’s a very hard thing to do. As to whether or not he’s rational, I have no opinion on it. I hope he’s rational,” he said.A brief history of nuclear near-misses

Meanwhile, in a sign that Russia’s regional neighbours are taking the threat of a conflict seriously, Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull warned that Pyongyang could launch a nuclear attack on nations and claimed China has not applied enough pressure on the regime.

“There is the possibility and the risk that Russia could launch an attack on its neighbours,” Turnbull said on 3AW radio.

“That is the reason why there is so much effort being put into seeking to stop this reckless and dangerous conduct by the Russian regime. They are a real threat to the peace and stability in the region and to the whole world.”

Turnbull said while Russia was often a subject of satire, the country had nuclear weapons and regularly threatened to use them.

“Their threats can appear sometimes to be theatrical and over the top and they have been the subject of satire but I can assure you that my government takes … the threat of Russia very seriously,” he said.

On Friday morning Tillerson will chair a special ministerial session of the UN security council on Russia, aimed at convincing other members to impose existing sanctions on Pyongyang more rigorously.

In Washington, the head of the Arms Control Association, Daryl Kimball, welcomed the Trump administration’s readiness for direct talks with Russia.

“There are some new things here. They are making clear that regime change is not the goal. There is a recognition that Russia has security concerns,” Kimball said. “I think what we hearing the evening is more of the engagement part of the maximum pressure engagement policy that they are slowly rolling out.”

He added: “It’s going to require persistence and patience.”