Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Criminal justice, law enforcement, and other DOJ matters"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pardons/Commutations: new section)
(DOJ and the AT&T-Time Warner merger)
Line 232: Line 232:
 
The DOJ apparently wants Time Warner to sell CNN in order to approve the merger between it an AT&T.[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/09/why-the-department-of-justice-put-the-brakes-on-the-att-time-warner-merger/][http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/08/report-doj-demands-cnn-sale-before-at-t-time-warner-deal-is-approved.html][https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/18/att-time-warner-merger-leaves-conservatives-fearin/][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-time-warner-m-a/u-s-att-at-odds-over-cnn-in-time-warner-deal-idUSKBN1D81Z8][https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/business/dealbook/att-time-warner.html] We'll see what comes out of this, but many conservatives worried about this deal.[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/justice-department-t-should-divest-cnn-ok-time-war/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (EST)
 
The DOJ apparently wants Time Warner to sell CNN in order to approve the merger between it an AT&T.[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/09/why-the-department-of-justice-put-the-brakes-on-the-att-time-warner-merger/][http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/08/report-doj-demands-cnn-sale-before-at-t-time-warner-deal-is-approved.html][https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/18/att-time-warner-merger-leaves-conservatives-fearin/][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-time-warner-m-a/u-s-att-at-odds-over-cnn-in-time-warner-deal-idUSKBN1D81Z8][https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/business/dealbook/att-time-warner.html] We'll see what comes out of this, but many conservatives worried about this deal.[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/justice-department-t-should-divest-cnn-ok-time-war/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (EST)
 
:President Trump also is concerned about the merger: [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/12/donald-trump-signals-concern-cnn-att-merger/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 
:President Trump also is concerned about the merger: [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/12/donald-trump-signals-concern-cnn-att-merger/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 +
::Unfortunately, a federal judge approved the merger,[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/12/att-time-warner-merger/][https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/att-prevails-as-time-warner-takeover-gets-ok-from-judge][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/12/five-things-to-know-about-the-att-time-warner-case/][http://www.breitbart.com/news/ruling-for-att-time-warner-merger-sets-stage-for-more-deals/] and the merger was made official today.[https://www.axios.com/att-completes-time-warner-deal-853f634e-2b17-42ab-be46-5634db7dc13e.html] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 14 June 2018 (EDT)
  
 
== Death penalty ==
 
== Death penalty ==

Revision as of 20:11, 14 June 2018

DOJ and Redskins

The DOJ ended its effort to force the Redskins to change their name.[1] I'm not going to label it as an achievement yet, but it is something interesting to note. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

AlphaBay -- "the largest dark net marketplace takedown in history"

The DOJ, partnering with Canada, European governments, and Thailand, shut down AlphaBay, which was the largest online black market in existence.[2][3][4] This is definitely an achievement, but because the DOJ partnered with so many other countries, I'm not sure how significant this achievement is to add here. Input would be great. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2017 (EDT)

Crime/drug crackdown

While only speeches/op-eds, AG Sessions is taking a strong stance against crime,[5] and he is supported by his deputy, Rod Rosenstein.[6] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2017 (EDT)

The DOJ is also reportedly planning on cracking down on illegal drugs.[7] This will be something interesting to watch for. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

The DOJ is also taking steps to combat the opioid crisis: [8] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2017 (EST)

Leak investigations

The DOJ will announce leak investigations soon.[9][10][11] Hopefully we'll see results from them. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2017 (EDT)

Unnecessary info

I removed this info as it was not very significant. Many DOJ positions still need Senate confirmation (only three have already been confirmed). --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2017 (EDT)

Drug prosecutions his a 25-year low

Despite gun crime prosecutions decreasing, drug prosecutions hit a 25-year low. This does not seem like a success (maybe a failure?), but even if it is a failure/success, it does not seem significant enough to me to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2017 (EDT)

I agree; they may be due to his actions, but even if so, they don't seem very significant. Besides, prosecution could be targeted differently. Instead of Obama taking down 50 drug dealers on the street, Trump could be working back to the source, and taking down three distributors. I'm not saying that this statistic sounds like a good thing, but it depends on too many other factors to count, for better or worse, towards him. --David B (TALK) 01:01, 29 July 2017 (EDT)
On the other hand, drug seizures are at a record high: [12] This might be something to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

BOP director

AG Sessions appointed a former Army general to direct the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[13][14][15][16][17] I think this is very good, but I don't see how this is significant enough to add to the article as an achievement. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Civil Rights --> Affirmative Action investigation

The DOJ is considering shifting resources from the civil rights department to an investigation on affirmative action.[18][19][20] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

The DOJ is calling media reports inaccurate.[21] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
They do appear to be investigating A.A. discrimination, such as against Asian students.[22] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
If we do eventually add this in some form, it might be worth considering adding it to the "social issues" sub-article rather than this one. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2017 (EDT)

Pot crackdown: lack of progress

It seems that the DOJ will not crack down on marijuana, despite most people's expectations that Sessions would crack down on it.[23] However, it is still early -- the DOJ could take moves against marijuana in the future, maybe the near future. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (EDT)

Failure to denaturalized illegal immigrants who wrongly received citizenship

The DOJ is saying it is not denaturalizing these people who wrongly received citizenship because it is "too busy with litigation."[24] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2017 (EDT)

Capitol Police bill

I removed this info that I had added earlier: August 4, 2017—President Trump signed a bill into law that gave the U.S. Capitol Police Memorial Fund the ability to help its police officers in the case of injury on the line of duty.<ref>Miller, S.A. (August 4, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/4/trump-signs-law-to-aid-wounded-us-capitol-police-o/ Trump signs law to aid wounded U.S. Capitol Police officers]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 4, 2017.</ref>

The reason I removed it was because the bill was very minor. It seems like a more technical and minor change and one that is more limited in scope. Of course, conservatives support and should support this change, but it seems too minor on second thought. It only affected Capitol Police.

However, if anyone thinks this bill is significant enough to include and does clearly advance conservative policies, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

Other police matters

This Washington Times article is interesting, illustrating the Trump Administration's shift from Obama in its attitude toward local police. It could be added, but I'm not sure where/how, at least yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

Not a direct achievement by the Trump Administration, along with the Trump Administration's restarting a program to allow police departments have military-grade material, a company selling this equipment is expanding: [25] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2018 (EDT)

Largest crackdown on white supremacist groups in history

The DOJ just finished its largest crackdown on criminal white supremacist groups, with 89 convictions.[26][27][28][29][30][31] This is good news, but most of the investigations took place during the Obama Administration, and the crackdown was started during the administration. Thus, it might not be appropriate to add, but if anyone disagrees, I would be happy to hear the arguments. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2017 (EDT)

H2B visa crackdown

User:1990'sguy has added a bullet about DOJ entering into a settlement of a case where US workers got $108,000 in back pay because their employer used H2B visa workers instead. However, as this Washington Times article shows,[32] the Obama Justice Department brought the suit and settled for $115,000 in back pay in March 2016. You need to reword the bullet if you want to use it as a Donald Trump achievement. JDano (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2017 (EDT

Let's leave the bullet out until we can agree on wording. JDano (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
This is politically delicate because the Trump Organization does use temporary visas at a number of its US resorts. So, let's be careful about this subject. JDano (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
Your last comment is absurd. Are you serious, or are you just trolling? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (EDT)

DOJ settlement with Louisiana company

I removed this info that I originally added because it seems that the dispute began before Trump took office.

JDano presented what seems to be good evidence in favor of this, but I will welcome evidence to the contrary. However, JDano's editing style is not contructive and does not lead to dialogue -- he should tone it down. I am not happy with his behavior, even if some of his arguments end up being correct (learn how to present them better, rather than acting as an edit warrior).

This source, however, if useful. Maybe it should be re-added in some way:

--1990'sguy (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2017 (EDT


I had to think about this one a bit longer before responding. Regardless of what may have been said before Trump to this nature, it is good progress. Obama probably wouldn't have meant it--Trump would. This is a part of Trumps ongoing effort to put America first. That said, I don't know if a statement alone counts as an achievement. It could be I suppose, but I would think of something like "Reduced H-1B visa issuance by 30%, returning jobs to American citizens" would be more of an actual achievement. I'd say this one is up to you. Words are cheap, though--I wouldn't want this to water-down the list. --David B (TALK) 22:55, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
Were you referring to the entire info here or just the Fox News article? I am unsure, but I am most interested in hearing your view of the DOJ/Louisiana company settlement. It seems to have been started during the Obaa Administration, but part of the settlement was carried out by the Trump Administration. I took the entire info out, but I am unsure if I made the right decision. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

Let's please watch the important differences the H-1B and H-2B visa programs. The April 4 Fox News story that 1990sguy cites above discusses only H-1B visas. The bullet now conflates the Fox story with the Louisiana settlement that involved H-2B visas. A single bullet that states, "The Trump Administration announced a crack-down on employers who hire foreign workers under temporary visas based on false representation that U.S. workers are not available to hold the jobs." would better fit the sources. The material that we moved to H-2B visa should stay there. JDano (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

I think I made clear that that reference is not directly related to the main point -- the Fox News ref cites the phrase "its support for American workers." We are not going to change this, and Andy has given me authority to take action against you if you unilaterally chose to do so. Maybe later I will re-look at this, but I'm tired of these silly disputes, and I will leave it for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
I certainly don't want any "silly disputes." We have a problem here, because this encyclopedia covers immigration including H-1B and H-2B visas. Immigration is being widely discussed in the media, and Rachel Maddow has made allegations about the Trump Organization's visa applications, so it is important that we are accurate and trustworthy in our coverage. We have now covered the Louisiana case in the H-2B visa article, but you want to add a bullet to the Donald Trump achievements article, and I am willing to assist. However, you keep going back to a March 2016 settlement reached by the Obama Administration, and the definition of a Donald Trump achievement is when something different happens after Jan 20. Please look at DavidB4's comment above, where he suggests it will "water down" the list. Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
And I didn't say my edit was set in stone -- but I would like more time to look over this. Andy made his view clear, so I will keep this in the article while I keep looking over it. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Done. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
I concur with the deletion. JDano (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
It seems to me that like JDano said, you might not want to mix up visa types here--the Fox article might be a little out of place. However, this action clearly does support American workers, so that reference might not be needed at all. I still can go either way as to whether it is a Trump achievement worth listing. Even if Obama did start it (while actually intending to finish it), Trump and his people are doing the work now. Many liberals (such as Hillary Clinton) probably would not have finished the task, but Trump is. Obama's work shouldn't be attributed directly to Trump, but we can include Trump's resolution to this issue. --David B (TALK) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

Lawsuit against Colorado company which favors foreign workers

The DOJ filed a lawsuit against the company, on the charge that it favors foreign workers over American workers: [33][34] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

It resulted in another settlement: [35] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2017 (EST)

Black Lives Matter

There are two sources for the bullet - I added the second one. The first is a Washington Times article which states,

"While the president didn’t mention Black Lives Matter by name, Mr. Trump said, “The attacks on our police must end, and they must end right now.” He specifically addressed ambushes of police last year in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and in Dallas, Texas."

The second is the official White House transcript of President Trump's speech -- it does not mention black lives matter. So, if both news story from the reporter who attended and the official White House transcript both agree that President Trump did not mention black lives matter in his speech, how can Conservapedia write a bullet that says, "President Trump expressed strong support for the police and strong opposition to violence directed at police, such as that by the anti-police "Black lives matter" movement". This is a dangerous putting words in the President's mouth. Look at this past weekend, when people were upset about whether or not President Trump named and shamed Nazi and White Supremacy groups. If President Trump decided not to name the black lives matter movement, we should be careful to honor his wishes. Do you have proof that a member of the black lives matter movement ambushed the police in Baton Rouge? Just as not all White Supremacy group members support killing people by running them over with a car, not all black lives matter movement members support ambushing police. President Trump's basic point over the weekend and on Tuesday was, "Don't paint with a broad brush and lump good guy with the bad guys." If Trump wants to give people space to support the Lee statue without being a Nazi, then he can also give people space to support "black lives" without being a cop ambusher. Trump did not call black lives matter "anti-police." I believe my wording is a more accurate description of what President Trump said and did. Thanks, JDano (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (EDT)

The WT source makes very clear that BLM is implied. It is clear and simple. I changed the wording to make that clear. I am doing a lot for you and I am refraining from blocking you. I will not do anything more with this info. Your statements comparing the BLM movement with people who oppose removing Confederate statues are absurd -- what is reasonable is comparing the BLM movement with the white supremacist groups, which are not the same as opposing taking down the statues. Also, you said "we should be careful to honor [Trump's] wishes", an absurd comment, considering that many of your other edits have not been very friendly towards the president (Trump tapes, etc.). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
In Washington DC, it is a big deal when the President names and shames an organization. The White House staff spends time debating whether to do it. The speech did not mention black lives matter, and there has been no evidence to link the police attacks in Baton Rouge and Dallas to the leaders of the black lives matter movement. You are writing a sentence in Donald Trump achievements that has Donald Trump as the subject and "expressed" is the verb. CP need to have sources to back up what is in the rest of the sentence to show that Donald Trump expressed it. Please don't put words in the President's mouth. Where are your sources linking black lives matter to what the President discussed and where are your sources saying that President Trump described them as "anti-police"? We are here to report what happened not what somebody wanted Trump to say. JDano (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
In case you didn't look, I actually changed the wording. It says that Trump opposed the violence, such as that done by BLM. It is interesting that you are all of a sudden a loyal Trump supporter who is worried that people are putting words in his mouth, even though you have a clear liberal bias otherwise (such as your edits with the alleged Trump tapes and fake news -- you didn't have a problem with labeling his comments as fake news, even though they were not). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
Please give me your sources that Donald Trump expressed that the abushes were "done by the anti-police 'Black lives matter' movement". He did not say that the black lives matter movement is "anti-police" and that the leaders of the black lives matter movement are responsible for the ambushes. I am no fan of the black lives matter movement, but it important to learn how to write accurate, well-sourced encyclopedia articles. Thanks, JDano (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
Your statements above seem to contradict your statement here that you don't like the movement: "if Trump wants to give people space to support the Lee statue without being a Nazi, then he can also give people space to support 'black lives' without being a cop ambusher." I think everybody with the exception of most if not all white supremacists supports "black lives." That's different from BLM. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
Once again, do you have any source to support your claim? I quoted your current language in my 17:00, 17 August 2017 (EDT) comment. It conflates what President Trump talked about -- Baton Rouge and Dallas -- with what he did not talk about -- black lives matter. The fact is undisputed that he did not mention black lives matter so how can you say that "President Trump expressed ... strong opposition to ... the anti-police "Black lives matter" movement." There is no evidence linking Baton Rouge and Dallas to black lives matter movement, and Conservapedia can't put words into the President's mouth. You are free to expand the Black lives matter article, but your personal views are not what Donald Trump accomplished in his speech. Thanks, JDano (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
I want a third opinion, and maybe a fourth -- I will not budge until I get one. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
Why don't you try to find a source? Both sources say that he did not name and shame black lives matter in his May 15 speech. I know of no sources at all that linked Baton Rouge and Dallas to the black lives matter movement. It is best to keep the misinformation off the page until we have some source to justify including it. Thanks, JDano (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
I already told you that I changed the wording. He criticized violence against the police, such as that done by BLM. The WT source clearly names BLM. Besides, the bulletpoint is not just referring to the speech. It refers to in general. Here is a campaign source: [36] Please wait with me until we get a third opinion. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

For issues like this, we may know it to be true, and even Trump may know it, but JDano is right--we shouldn't put words in his mouth by editorializing. That said, The reference 1990'sguy provided is spot-on for showing his beliefs in this case. The current wording might be close enough, but it still sounds like he related it to BLM, which is not the case here. If editorializing is going to take place (which I don't object to for this) it should be clear that we are saying that, not him. Also, the provided thehill reference should be added to that comment. What about making the comment parenthetical: "President Trump expressed strong support for the police and strong opposition to violence directed at police[REFS] (such as that by the anti-police "Black lives matter" movement.)[TheHill REF]" ?
How does that sound? For disbelieving readers, be should make sure to be precise in our statements--besides, it's good form in general. --David B (TALK) 18:48, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

OK. What is your opinion on the Louisiana/DOJ settlement? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
DavidB4, that is covered above. I moved the substance to the H-2B visa article, because the enforcement effort started under the Obama Administration, and it appears that the settlement was reached in March 2016. Under the settlement, the company was given time to write the checks and then report back. The report closing out the deal happened during the Trump Administration. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

I would propose two bullets: The first is:

Candidate Trump in July 2016 said that the phrase "Black lives matter" was "very divisive" and also that the incidents of policemen shooting black men that were caught on camera were "terrible" and "disgusting."[The hill footnote]

The second is:

On May 15, President Trump attended a memorial service for police killed in the line of duty and expressed strong support for the police and strong opposition to violence directed at police.[32]

President Trump has never called black lives matter "anti-police". Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

I don't want the bullet point on support for the police to be referring to a specific event. That would make it more appropriate for Donald Trump achievements: Non-legislative or policy achievements. What I want to say that that in a general sense (rather than a specific speech), President Trump has been a champion for the police.
Also, I don't want entire bullet points entirely devoted to Trump's campaign statements. I only found and added The Hill reference because you insisted (the WT source makes it very clear that Trump "decr[ied] the ambush-style killings of police last year during the Black Lives Matter movement."[37]
Also, the words "anti-police" have ZERO to do with anything Trump said. It was a descriptor of the movement that I added. Think of it as the "editorializing" that DavidB4 endorsed. They clearly are anti-police. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
The problem is that "they" is not well defined. (Bad guys who shoot police are anti-police. "Nice people" (to use Trump's words) who want to reduce unarmed black men being shot are not necessarily anti-police.) As a candidate, Trump walked down the middle, supporting police, calling the phrase "black lives matter" divisive, and condemning the police shooting of unarmed black people. (See The Hill article). If attending a pro-life rally or a boy scout jamboree can have an achievement bullet, then lets have the bullet about his attending the May 15 Police Memorial service.
Donald Trump is not a racist. He has reached out to the Historically Black Colleges (and had their Presidents to the White House). He has reached out to the Congressional Black Caucus. During the 2016 campaign, he expressly reached out to offer African-americans a better deal than they would receive under Hillary Clinton. He has appointed blacks to high positions including Omarosa Manigault. Maybe I have misread your bullet and discussion, but there is no "either/or" in being pro-police and wanting to see all Americans (regardless of race) have the opportunity to succeed. Why can't we just report that he went to the ceremony to show support for the policy and condemned the violence? I think that Trump would condemn anyone shooting a policeman, although in these two cases it happened that they were African-american. Trump did not make a big deal about the motive of the shooters. Why are you editorializing when nobody has shown the link to the black lives matter movement? If you must use the phrase anti-police, use it as a limitation. "President Trump condemned only those who are anti-police and not the entire black lives matter movement" JDano (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
Conservapedia Commandment 5: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." JDano (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
It's well established that BLM is anti-police. It's not personal opinion. And no, I did not accuse Trump of somehow being racist -- don't imply that, at least if you want to be taken seriously.
Also, you still fail to understand why I added the pro-life event -- Pence became the highest-ranking U.S. official in history to attend the event -- a strong sign of support for the pro-life movement. Simply attending the event, without a "first" or "only" or something like that, would not qualify the event to be included IMO.
Events like the police one are much more politically correct. This is not an event that only conservatives would attend -- the vast majority of politicians will tell you they support the police. However, Trump took a very conservative stance on police matters, as seen in this speech. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
Finally, the problem with a general bullet about "Trump and the police" is that in general, the President does not control or fund local or state police. The police work for the Governor or the Mayor, etc. So, we can have bullets about memorial services, bullets about signing bills to give federal grants to put more cops on the street, bullets about ending DOJ investigations into police violating civil rights laws BUT we can't have bullets about local police having higher job satisfaction. That would be the achievement of the governor or mayor, etc. JDano (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
No, this bullet point is not a policy achievement -- it is a culture achievement. Unlike the "BLM" movement, Trump is standing strong with the police. Think of the bully pulpit. I moved the info here from Donald Trump achievements: Non-legislative or policy achievements in preparation for a pending re-organization on non-official policy achievements. It has nothing to do with "controlling" of "funding" the police -- it has to do with the nation's highest official sticking up for the police. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
I don't see how "I saw what they (BLM) said about the police in various marches and rallies, I've seen moments of silence called [for] this horrible human being who shot the policemen" could be any clearer....He recognizes that BLM people honor those who murder police. His opinion is clear. This doesn't make him a racist, it just means he recognizes how twisted many of the BLM people are. (You know, the ones who throw rocks at people displaying "All Lives Matter" and vehemently saying that all lives do NOT matter. As for one point vs. two, I don't think it matter much. As far as I can tell, this is more a matter of style. --David B (TALK) 22:06, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
I said that Trump is not a racist, although there is a lot of talk this week on the question. Let's not twist his position, and go with two bullets because the parenthetical could be misread as being the part of the object of "President Trump expressed..." Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
Once again, we are not going to go with the two-bullet option. I will not accept any bullet points in this sub-article solely referring to campaign statements. Only from his presidency, even though I can accept what I just did on my most recent reversion. Did you see it? This is the version I want to stick with.
And besides, why is no one talking about the Louisiana company/DOJ settlement? I would like input on that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
Becaused we moved it to H-2B visa article. JDano (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

Other campaign sources: [38][39][40] I am just adding these sources here for the record. Foe now, I will keep it out. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

What was the matter with having just the one bullet regarding his presidency that you proposed and I refined at 22:46? But if you want to keep the campaign stuff out, that is fine. I think we have satisfied everyone. Thanks, JDano (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

We were fine with a single bullet, and then you added a second sentence about "antifa". It is not clear to me that the widespread popular culture has accepted this abbreviation for antifacist. Nor is it proper to conflate violence directed at Police with violence committed by antifacists. There is an implication that Trump condemned violence that antifacists had directed toward police, which was not the case in the past week. I am making them two different bullets. JDano (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

I think it is very clear that the term "Antifa" is very, very widely used. Do a Google search on it. I am OK with you making it a separate bullet point. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

TSA gun seizures

The TSA is on track to seizing a record number of guns at airports this year: [41] This is probably not notable enough to add either way, but if these seizures are because of just enforcing the law and nothing else, this would probably be an achievement. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Perhaps, but I'm a little concerned that they will be seizing guns on no significant cause. Perhaps they will be examining all checked firearms and seizing ones which do not have gun locks, or some other such rubbish, or perhaps it will be legitimate. I'm not very optimistic though. --David B (TALK) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (EDT)
Here's an updated article, also by the Washington Examiner: [42] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

FBI -- "still run by Obama"

The FBI is refusing to release Hillary Clinton's archived records, claiming a lack of public interest: [43] Eight months into the Trump Administration, and the FBI still seems like it is part of the Obama Administration. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2017 (EDT)

The FBI changed its mind on this.[44] Also, a federal judge ordered the FBI a few weeks earlier to release subpoenas related to Clinton's emails.[45][46] The State Department will also go faster in releasing emails.[47] Also, this is interesting: [48] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

DOJ declines to investigate Lois Lerner

Here is a potential failure: the DOJ will not investigate or charge Lois Lerner for the IRS scandal, in which many Tea Party movement groups were denied tax exempt status.[49][50][51] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Some members of Congress are speaking out about this and only issuing an apology to the hundreds of conservative groups targeted.[52] Hopefully, we haven't seen the end of this yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

DOJ still listening to the Deep State

In addition to Lerner,[53] the DOJ earlier refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton, while still appointing a special counsel to investigate the alleged Russia scandal. I will probably add this soon -- I just don't want to add something before it's "ripe." --1990'sguy (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Here's a somewhat interesting article on this: [54] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2017 (EST)

Progress (Clinton uranium deal)?

AG Sessions directed prosecutors to "evaluate certain issues" regarding Clinton and the Uranium One deal.[55][56][57] However, Sessions does not appear likely to appoint a special counsel to investigate.[58] It seems like half-measures right now. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Sessions is now directing the DOJ to do essentially the same thing again.[59][60][61][62][63] Let's hope that something actually comes out of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2017 (EST)

More investigations

The DOJ is now investigating the Obama Administration's purposely lax enforcement of Hezbollah's drug trafficking in order to advance the Iran nuclear deal: [64][65] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2017 (EST)

The DOJ and FBI are apparently investigating the Clinton Foundation for "pay-to-play" allegations -- let's see what becomes of this, but with AG Session's performance in this area, as well as the deep state's influence, I'm not too optimistic.[66][67][68][69][70] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2018 (EST)
Sessions is increasing DOJ efforts into the Hezbollah investigation: [71][72][73][74][75][76] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2018 (EST)

The DOJ announced it will not pursue charges against NJ Senator Bob Menendez, which effectively ends this trial: [77][78][79][80] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Sessions says he is considering appointing a second prosecutor to look into various matters: [81] Hopefully, this will be the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2018 (EST)

Sessions is still refusing to have a second special counsel look into FBI and DOJ abuses: [82][83][84][85] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Instead, he's having a U.S. attorney look into it -- problem is, the U.S. attorney is an Obama appointee: [86] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
Here's another perspective on this: [87] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
And yet another interesting article: [88] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

Sessions won't recuse himself from the probe on Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney,[89][90][91] though he's continuing to recuse himself from election-related matters: [92] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

But now he's keeping silent about this: [93] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

This is a potential failure: the White House has sided with the DOJ in supporting refusing to release some information related to the Muller investigation: [94] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

Jeff Sessions

This discussion could also be in the immigration sub-article talk page, but Jess Sessions has been a very strong voice for Trump's agenda, as this article shows: [95] Also, his announcement on ending DACA was very strong. I might consider adding these to either this article or the immigration article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

Another good article related to this topic: [96] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2017 (EDT)
More articles: [97] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
Sessions has been outspoken in his support for free speech, as the WT source above also shows, and he may take legal action in this area: [98][99] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2017 (EDT)
More good info that I added elsewhere: [100], [101] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
Here are more possible sources, in case I ever decide to add someting about Session's strong positions: [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Despite the failures of refusing to prosecute Clinton, Lerner, and possibly on not doing much to look into the Clinton uranium deal case, the DOJ did lift a gag order from a whistleblower so they talk to the Congress about the uranium deal.[110] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

Defending free speech

I should probably add this to the article (and I might do it soon), but the DOJ is supporting another campus free speech case.[111][112][113] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

Other minor changes

The DOJ reportedly made many changes to its U.S. attorneys' manual: [114][115][116] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

DOJ and halfway houses

The DOJ is reducing its support for halfway houses.[117] I'll keep this out of the article, at least for now, as I don't see how relevant this is to advancing a conservative agenda. Correct me if I'm wrong. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Perhaps this is intended to help cut down on the catch-and-release problem? Probably without more info it can't be counted as a significant achievement though. --David B (TALK) 23:43, 11 February 2018 (EST)

Chinese drug traffickers indicted

The DOJ announced it indicted two Chinese drup traffickers, something it says is a significant move.[118][119][120][121][122][123] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Oh, so these are bulk suppliers--okay, that is good news. It might be worth noting, but it would be better if we could say that they were actually convicted and stopped. --David B (TALK) 23:46, 11 February 2018 (EST)

DOJ and the AT&T-Time Warner merger

The DOJ apparently wants Time Warner to sell CNN in order to approve the merger between it an AT&T.[124][125][126][127][128] We'll see what comes out of this, but many conservatives worried about this deal.[129] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (EST)

President Trump also is concerned about the merger: [130] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
Unfortunately, a federal judge approved the merger,[131][132][133][134] and the merger was made official today.[135] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2018 (EDT)

Death penalty

The Trump DOJ is more open to pursuing the death penalty, and it is doing such for several cases -- might be something to add, but as in many of these things, it might be better to wait and see the results of this: [136] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Agreed, let's see where this goes. If we can reestablish the death penalty as a very real threat, criminals will actually see how crime really doesn't pay. --David B (TALK) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (EST)

Opoid response plan

In addition to building a border wall to stop drug traffickers, Trump proposed using the death penalty on those traffickers, at least for certain instances: [137][138][139][140][141] While it's not surprising, AG Sessions supports this,[142] so we'll see what happens. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

The death penalty for certain drug dealers is already federal law, so the DOJ could begin this right now (and hopefully, they will -- this may be something to add).[143] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2018 (EDT)
Sessions seems to be taking additional steps to counter opoids: [144][145][146][147] These are somewhat interesting, though I don't now if they're significant enough to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
On Drug Take Back Day, the DO collected nearly a million pounds of prescription drugs, which is a record: [148] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
The FDA is cracking down on online opioid sales: [149][150][151][152] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2018 (EDT)

FISA memos

Should I add Trump's releasing of the GOP FISA memo to this article as an achievement?[153][154][155][156][157][158][159] Does Trump's refusing to release the Democrat countermemo (in its current form)[160][161][162][163][164] make a difference on including the former? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'd say yes, go ahead and list it. He made a good step to help show people who are actually interested in the truth, some of what is going on. As for the Democrat memo, it was a problem of too much classified material. He refused to release it because so much of it would need to be redacted. Just imagine what would have happened if he released the memo with half of it redacted? The liberals would have added it to their list of accusations. It sounds to me like he did the right thing in both cases. --David B (TALK) 23:53, 11 February 2018 (EST)
Thanks -- I think I will add the GOP memo to this article soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2018 (EST)

Fighting sexual trafficking and abuse

The DOJ began a program to help crack down on sexual harassment of women by their landlords: [165][166] Meanwhile, Trump signed a bill that helps prosecutors go after websites that allow sex trafficking ads (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), though some conservatives have been skeptical of this bill.[167] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2018 (EDT)

Pardons/Commutations

Trump commuted a lifetime sentence of a woman who broke federal drug laws after she served 21 years, something that Kim Kardashian advocated for: [168][169][170][171] I'm not enthusiastic about the whole "prison reform" and "sentencing reform" push, though I think this commutation is reasonable/defensible. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2018 (EDT)