The Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 7, 2018

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

RTE takes a stab at sovereignty, instead publishes long story titled "EU 'regrets' reintroduction of US sanctions against Iran" about Mr Trump, and fails.

#IranDeal "We updated our Blocking Statute [..] this legislation protects European businesses from the effects of the US sanctions" @FedericaMog https://t.co/x8TpA9r3bu pic.twitter.com/bGCi4YHuK7

— European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 (@eu_eeas) August 7, 2018

Updated Blocking Statute in support of Iran nuclear deal

The process of updating the Blocking Statute was launched by the Commission on 6 June 2018, when it added to its scope the extra-territorial sanctions the US is re-imposing on Iran. A two-month scrutiny period for the European Parliament and the Council followed. Since neither objected [BY WHOM?], the update was published and entered into force on 7 August 2018.

The Blocking Statute allows EU operators to recover damages arising from the extra-territorial sanctions within its scope from the persons causing them and nullifies the effect in the EU of any foreign court rulings based on them. It also forbids EU persons from complying with those sanctions, unless exceptionally authorised to do so by the Commission in case non-compliance seriously damages their interests or the interests of the Union.

To help EU operators with the implementation of the updated Blocking Statute the Commission published a Guidance Note to facilitate understanding of the relevant legal acts.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

I think the law he talks about is the one of gravity. Keeps all that water in the ocean instead of on the fiery parts.

Well, you see, if the damn liberals weren't insisting that we divert river water into the ocean so as to raise the sea level to prove global warming, than all the river water would be used to irrigate forests and hillsides, and there would be so much wood that the logging industry would come back, which liberals hate because they hate real Americans.

We're all wrong.

A flat tire was the problem. It has been extinguished and removed, I suppose.

AND the shifty-eyed "Holy Fire" arsonist of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties has been apprehended for good measure.

NOW, soon, paradise will be restored.
Feds Offer to Put Water on California Wildfires

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

Inquisitors' Founding Regulations of Absolute Power
Trump-Appointed Judge Rules Against Indicted Russian Firm

Concord Management and Consulting's attempts to discredit the investigation were shot down in a 41-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by Trump to the District of Columbia bench last year.

[MEMORANDUM OPINION: the "could"] Concord Management and Consulting LLC moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed unlawfully by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Dkt. 36. The Court will deny Concord's motion. The Special Counsel's appointment complies with the Constitution's Appointments Clause because (1) the Special Counsel is an "inferior Officer"; and (2) Congress "by Law vest[ed]" the Acting Attorney General with the power to make the appointment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
[...]
Id. The regulations govern the Special Counsel's jurisdiction, powers, and duties. They "seek to strike a balance between independence and accountability in certain sensitive investigations." Id. According to the regulations' preamble, the Special Counsel is "free to structure the investigation as he or she wishes and to exercise independent prosecutorial discretion to decide whether charges should be brought, within the context of the established procedures of the Department." Id. "Nevertheless, it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled continue[s] to rest with the Attorney General (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is personally recused in the matter)." Id. B. Appointment of Special Counsel Rob

DICTION CORNER: limits of Inquistors' Power, or Authority, as an"inferior officer" in the executive branch

First, "should" is generally "precatory, not mandatory."

The imperative mood is tried, strictly, not colloquially speaking, Mr Comey might argue. I don't know, haven't read his book.

Ass'n of Flight Attendants v. Huerta, 785 F.3d 710, 718 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Jolly v. Listerman, 672 F.2d 935, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("The use of the word 'should' . . . detracts significantly from any claim that this guideline is more than merely precatory"); Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948, 958 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Judd v. Billington, 863 F.2d 103, 106 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Although the use of "should" instead of "shall" is not "automatically determinative," Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265, 281 (D.C. Cir. 1977), it is particularly striking here because "shall" is used twice in the very same sub-provision, seven times in the same provision, and throughout the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.3, 600.4, 600.6, 600.7; see also Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) ("We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship."). And the same sub-provision requires that, if the Acting Attorney General concludes that a proposed action should not be pursued," certain actions must follow--in particular, the Acting Attorney General "shall notify Congress." 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(b). Pointedly missing is any requirement that the Special Counsel "shall" comply with the conclusion. See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, 1723 (2017) ("[W]e presume differences in language . . . convey differences in meaning.").

Further context does not turn "should" into a mandatory term. The Special Counsel argues that "should" is sufficiently ambiguous that its meaning ought to be ascertained from the "the context of the regulation" and the Attorney General's "intent," such as is embodied in the regulations' background section....

I for one am reminded of arguments offered by Republican caucus conselors differentiating "state" and "State" in the matter of PPACA "fines" and "taxes" before the SCOTUS.

Regardless, even crediting the Special Counsel's argument that "should" can be read as a mandatory "shall," some Special Counsel decisions remain insulated from review or countermand under § 600.7(b)....

WASS

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.