longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2019 at 9:31am:

Criticism in the lefts eyes are repeatedly belching out the words racist and bigot, its worked a treat so far around the world.

Surly you lot have a plan B, everybody has a plan B.

I just hate it when you use facts to make President Trump look good.

If we had got a Hillary presidency we could be at war with Russia by now.

   

Johnnie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2019 at 10:59pm:


Oh, that's easy. Trump rejected black tenants from the state-funded housing portfolio he managed for his father, back in the 70s. The New York housing agency investigated, sending in white and black agents to apply for tenancies. The blacks were all denied leases, and the whites were all granted them. Same incomes, credit histories, the lot. It was a landmark case, the first of its kind in New York. The agency found active racial discrimination and were going to throw the book at Trump.

Trump Senior used his contacts and prevented a major civil law suit, but the Trumps had to bite the bullet and accept a few blacks into Daddy's properties.

There goes the neighbourhood, eh?

Johnnie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2019 at 9:14am:


Yes, dear, the ruling of a state agency. The civil suit would have been to seek damages.

All that happened to Mr Trump is he was found to have been a racist.

You?

Johnnie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2019 at 6:35pm:


Not to the councillors Trump Senior paid off, Matty, no. As Mr Trump says, that's how you do business.

It's all on the record, dear. The New York housing agency found the Trumps racist. Various New York agencies have found them corrupt. The Trump Foundation's another multi-million dollar rort that could end up in court, but Mr Trump has been doing this for years.

Trump University litigants got a 20 mil payout, but only after a civil action. How do you think blacks denied leases in New Jersey back in 1971 would have fared?

Johnnie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2019 at 6:54pm:


you could google it yourself easily. You dont need to act like a flat-earther demanding endless proof of well-known, easily accessible proofs.

Washington: The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in defence funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

The court's five conservative justices gave the administration the green light to begin work on four contracts it has awarded using Defence Department money. Funding for the projects had been frozen by lower courts. The court's four liberal justices wouldn't have allowed construction to start.

The justices' decision to lift the freeze on the Pentagon money allows Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term. Trump tweeted after the announcement: "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"

A trial court initially froze the funds in May and an appeals court kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $US2.5 billion ($3.6 billion) to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

The case the Supreme Court ruled on began after the 35-day partial government shutdown that started in December last year. Trump ended the shutdown in February after Congress gave him approximately $US1.4 billion in border wall funding. But the amount was far less than the $US5.7 billion he was seeking, and Trump then declared a national emergency to take cash from other government accounts to use to construct sections of wall.


The money Trump identified includes $US3.6 billion from military construction funds, $US2.5 billion from the Defence Department and $US600 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.


The case before the Supreme Court involved just the $US2.5 billion in defence funds, which the administration says will be used to construct more than 160 kilometres of fencing. One project would replace 74km of barrier in New Mexico for $US789 million. Another would replace 101km in Arizona for $US646 million. The other two projects in California and Arizona are smaller.

The other funds were not at issue in the case. The Treasury Department funds have so far survived legal challenges, and Customs and Border Protection has earmarked the money for work in Texas' Rio Grande Valley but has not yet awarded contracts. Transfer of the $US3.6 billion in military construction funds is waiting on approval from the defense secretary.

The lawsuit at the Supreme Court challenging the use of the defence funds was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition.