Constitution and Norms under Attack: Military, Judiciary, Administration, Congress, International
Este tema fue continuado por Constitution and Norms under Attack: Military, Judiciary, Administration, Congress, International 2.
CharlasPro and Con
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1margd
Trump is fraying nerves inside the Pentagon
Barbara Starr | January 17, 2019
Washington (CNN)Two years into his presidency, Donald Trump is fueling unprecedented uncertainty and anxiety inside the Pentagon. In private conversations over the past month, many of them unsolicited, more than a dozen key military officers, enlisted personnel and senior civilians have expressed worry and concern to CNN. None of the officials have spoken publicly about this, as military law prohibits active-duty personnel from criticizing a sitting president.
It's not just Trump's unpredictable decision making that has officials on edge, it's also his penchant for politicizing the military— something that's come into focus in recent months as he's struggled to fulfill his campaign promise to crack down on immigration and build a border wall. His decision to draw down troops in Syria and his claims that ISIS is defeated have also rankled military commanders who felt it wasn't well thought out.
Some of the highest-ranking officers say there is a new atmosphere of unease inside the Pentagon, particularly among some of the most senior ranks, over the President's inclination to use the military to achieve certain partisan policy objectives. Behind the scenes officials are trying to keep it all at bay. "The amount of time we have to spend making sure our statements and what we say is apolitical is astronomically higher than ever before," one senior military officer told CNN.
If commanders order the troops to perform a mission for reasons that are political — rather than based on national security grounds — the fundamental nature of the US military is changed, several officials worry. That line has already been crossed in the minds of some over the issue of sending troops to the border. It could become even more of a problem should the President decide to declare a national emergency to gain access to Defense Department funds to build the wall...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/trump-frays-nerves-at-pentagon/index.htm...
ETA__________________________________________________________________
Barbara Starr @barbarastarrcnn | 9:09 AM - 17 Jan 2019:
Today at Pentagon in front of top commanders Trump blamed what he called Democratic "fringe" and "radical" left. and Speaker Pelosi for not acting on his border plans. Entire room stayed silent and did not applaud partisan remarks.
Barbara Starr | January 17, 2019
Washington (CNN)Two years into his presidency, Donald Trump is fueling unprecedented uncertainty and anxiety inside the Pentagon. In private conversations over the past month, many of them unsolicited, more than a dozen key military officers, enlisted personnel and senior civilians have expressed worry and concern to CNN. None of the officials have spoken publicly about this, as military law prohibits active-duty personnel from criticizing a sitting president.
It's not just Trump's unpredictable decision making that has officials on edge, it's also his penchant for politicizing the military— something that's come into focus in recent months as he's struggled to fulfill his campaign promise to crack down on immigration and build a border wall. His decision to draw down troops in Syria and his claims that ISIS is defeated have also rankled military commanders who felt it wasn't well thought out.
Some of the highest-ranking officers say there is a new atmosphere of unease inside the Pentagon, particularly among some of the most senior ranks, over the President's inclination to use the military to achieve certain partisan policy objectives. Behind the scenes officials are trying to keep it all at bay. "The amount of time we have to spend making sure our statements and what we say is apolitical is astronomically higher than ever before," one senior military officer told CNN.
If commanders order the troops to perform a mission for reasons that are political — rather than based on national security grounds — the fundamental nature of the US military is changed, several officials worry. That line has already been crossed in the minds of some over the issue of sending troops to the border. It could become even more of a problem should the President decide to declare a national emergency to gain access to Defense Department funds to build the wall...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/trump-frays-nerves-at-pentagon/index.htm...
ETA__________________________________________________________________
Barbara Starr @barbarastarrcnn | 9:09 AM - 17 Jan 2019:
Today at Pentagon in front of top commanders Trump blamed what he called Democratic "fringe" and "radical" left. and Speaker Pelosi for not acting on his border plans. Entire room stayed silent and did not applaud partisan remarks.
22wonderY
>1 margd: Good for those commanders! It's about time his unwilling audiences speak with silence.
3proximity1
>1 margd:
"If commanders order the troops to perform a mission for reasons that are political — rather than based on national security grounds —" ...
Right. Never mind the U.S. - Viet Nam war. It never happened. And, if it had, it should of course have been entirely "based on national-security grounds", as all 'good' wars have been--LOL!
Note:
"SECTION 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" ...
4krazy4katz
>3 proximity1: Right. The Vietnam War. But can’t we try to do better in the future rather than worse? The military is not supposed to be used for domestic purposes. And it’s a hard sell to say they were defending our southern border against dangerous invaders. In fact it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
5proximity1
>4 krazy4katz:
Every war has motives which are inherently, and, so, inescapably, political--every war-- especially in the context of the modern nation-state. It can even be said that, in the most primitive societies--small tribes,--tribal warfare is rarely devoid of essentially political imperatives.
The Trojan war was political. The first and second of the modern "world wars" (1914-1918 & 1939-1945) had thoroughly political motives and ambitions behind their genesis. Hitler, at one point, had not even envisioned his impending conflict including the United States among his foes. The U.S. ambassador to Britain, Joe Kennedy, Sr., so favored Hitler as a world-leader that he, Kennedy, had to be replaced.
" But can’t we try to do better in the future rather than worse?"
Yes, we can: "doing better in the future," on this matter, would mean grasping firmly and clearly that, for modern nation-states, all wars are going to be, to very important extents, political matters. Wishing that we're not true, hoping that it may eventually be surmounted is not helpful. It's delusional.
Of course, the worst wars are those in which the origins are, for all practical purposes, entirely political in character. There has been no shortage of these.
People voluntarily joining national armed-forces ought to try and have their eyes wide open. That would include a lively awareness that, should they be mobilized for war, the chances are virtually certain that, to the extent that they risk their life, they are risking it for objectives and purposes which are essentially political.
Every war has motives which are inherently, and, so, inescapably, political--every war-- especially in the context of the modern nation-state. It can even be said that, in the most primitive societies--small tribes,--tribal warfare is rarely devoid of essentially political imperatives.
The Trojan war was political. The first and second of the modern "world wars" (1914-1918 & 1939-1945) had thoroughly political motives and ambitions behind their genesis. Hitler, at one point, had not even envisioned his impending conflict including the United States among his foes. The U.S. ambassador to Britain, Joe Kennedy, Sr., so favored Hitler as a world-leader that he, Kennedy, had to be replaced.
" But can’t we try to do better in the future rather than worse?"
Yes, we can: "doing better in the future," on this matter, would mean grasping firmly and clearly that, for modern nation-states, all wars are going to be, to very important extents, political matters. Wishing that we're not true, hoping that it may eventually be surmounted is not helpful. It's delusional.
Of course, the worst wars are those in which the origins are, for all practical purposes, entirely political in character. There has been no shortage of these.
People voluntarily joining national armed-forces ought to try and have their eyes wide open. That would include a lively awareness that, should they be mobilized for war, the chances are virtually certain that, to the extent that they risk their life, they are risking it for objectives and purposes which are essentially political.
6John5918
>5 proximity1:
I don't think anyone would disagree that wars are political.
Isn't the point in question about using the military for internal party political motives, ie to boost the policies, popularity or power of the ruling party? Galtieri and Thatcher could both arguably be accused of this in the Falklands/Malvinas War, and some of the USA's military incursions could perhaps also be guilty of this. Likewise Trump's mobilisation of the military for his immigration narrative.
I don't think anyone would disagree that wars are political.
Isn't the point in question about using the military for internal party political motives, ie to boost the policies, popularity or power of the ruling party? Galtieri and Thatcher could both arguably be accused of this in the Falklands/Malvinas War, and some of the USA's military incursions could perhaps also be guilty of this. Likewise Trump's mobilisation of the military for his immigration narrative.
7margd
The Constitutional Crisis Already at the Border
Scott R. Anderson | January 22, 2019
...For almost three months, thousands of active duty U.S. military personnel—not the national guardsmen used in prior border deployments—have taken up temporary residence on the southern border. At times operating in full battledress, they have provided Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel with a diverse array of assistance, ranging from transportation and medical services to the deployment of concertina wire. Premised on the purported threat posed by large caravans of Central American migrants attempting to enter the United States, the deployment of these personnel was recently extended through September 2019. Until then, these troops will continue to operate at the intersection of military operations and civilian law enforcement efforts—two domains that the U.S. legal system has traditionally tried to keep separate.
...the “military protective activities” that Trump authorized on Nov. 20, which permit deployed service members to use force if necessary to defend CBP personnel from the purported threats posed by the migrant caravans. Drafted to resemble certain practices set out in existing military guidelines, authorization of the deployment of military personnel for this purpose is a novel step that may reflect a new assertion of legal authority by the president. The Trump administration, however, has resisted providing the public with a legal justification for these activities. As a result, the full scope of this assertion—and its implications for the future scope of presidential authority—remains unclear.
...The Problem with “Military Protective Activities”...
...the Trump administration should be made to disclose the legal basis for the Nov. 20 decision memorandum. Public scrutiny will allow legal experts to weigh the argument’s merits and analyze its consequences. Congress and the voting public can then respond accordingly. And if the Trump administration continues to resist such transparency, then Congress should use its oversight authorities to force disclosure. Absent such efforts, this theory is likely to remain hidden from sight. And when it eventually resurfaces, it may do so in ways that are far more troubling.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitutional-crisis-already-border
Scott R. Anderson | January 22, 2019
...For almost three months, thousands of active duty U.S. military personnel—not the national guardsmen used in prior border deployments—have taken up temporary residence on the southern border. At times operating in full battledress, they have provided Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel with a diverse array of assistance, ranging from transportation and medical services to the deployment of concertina wire. Premised on the purported threat posed by large caravans of Central American migrants attempting to enter the United States, the deployment of these personnel was recently extended through September 2019. Until then, these troops will continue to operate at the intersection of military operations and civilian law enforcement efforts—two domains that the U.S. legal system has traditionally tried to keep separate.
...the “military protective activities” that Trump authorized on Nov. 20, which permit deployed service members to use force if necessary to defend CBP personnel from the purported threats posed by the migrant caravans. Drafted to resemble certain practices set out in existing military guidelines, authorization of the deployment of military personnel for this purpose is a novel step that may reflect a new assertion of legal authority by the president. The Trump administration, however, has resisted providing the public with a legal justification for these activities. As a result, the full scope of this assertion—and its implications for the future scope of presidential authority—remains unclear.
...The Problem with “Military Protective Activities”...
...the Trump administration should be made to disclose the legal basis for the Nov. 20 decision memorandum. Public scrutiny will allow legal experts to weigh the argument’s merits and analyze its consequences. Congress and the voting public can then respond accordingly. And if the Trump administration continues to resist such transparency, then Congress should use its oversight authorities to force disclosure. Absent such efforts, this theory is likely to remain hidden from sight. And when it eventually resurfaces, it may do so in ways that are far more troubling.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitutional-crisis-already-border
82wonderY
>7 margd: " And when it eventually resurfaces, it may do so in ways that are far more troubling."
Like towards "rabble-rousing" citizens?
Like towards "rabble-rousing" citizens?
92wonderY
Top U.N. Judge Has Resigned Over 'Shocking' Interference From the White House and Turkey
A top judge in one of the United Nations’ international courts in The Hague has quit over what he termed “shocking” political interference from the White House and Turkey, the Guardian reports.
The judge, Christoph Flügge, alleged that Turkey used its veto to end the tenure of a Turkish judge in one of the U.N. courts, setting a dangerous precedent for intervention.
“Every incident in which judicial independence is breached is one too many,” he said. “Now there is this case, and everyone can invoke it in the future. Everyone can say: ‘But you let Turkey get its way.’ This is an original sin.”
Turkish judge Aydın Sefa Akay was removed over alleged connections to a Turkish cleric living in the U.S. named Fethullah Gülen who Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan blames for a failed coup against him in 2016.
Flügge cited White House interference as well. He said the U.S. had threatened judges over an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the conduct of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
“John Bolton, the national security adviser to the US president, held a speech last September in which he wished death on the international criminal court,”Flügge said, according to the Guardian.
“If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or investigate an American citizen, he said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted.”
Flügge said the court was stunned by Bolton’s hostility.
“The American threats against international judges clearly show the new political climate. It is shocking. I had never heard such a threat,” he said.
“It is consistent with the new American line: ‘We are No 1 and we stand above the law,’” he added.
A top judge in one of the United Nations’ international courts in The Hague has quit over what he termed “shocking” political interference from the White House and Turkey, the Guardian reports.
The judge, Christoph Flügge, alleged that Turkey used its veto to end the tenure of a Turkish judge in one of the U.N. courts, setting a dangerous precedent for intervention.
“Every incident in which judicial independence is breached is one too many,” he said. “Now there is this case, and everyone can invoke it in the future. Everyone can say: ‘But you let Turkey get its way.’ This is an original sin.”
Turkish judge Aydın Sefa Akay was removed over alleged connections to a Turkish cleric living in the U.S. named Fethullah Gülen who Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan blames for a failed coup against him in 2016.
Flügge cited White House interference as well. He said the U.S. had threatened judges over an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the conduct of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
“John Bolton, the national security adviser to the US president, held a speech last September in which he wished death on the international criminal court,”Flügge said, according to the Guardian.
“If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or investigate an American citizen, he said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted.”
Flügge said the court was stunned by Bolton’s hostility.
“The American threats against international judges clearly show the new political climate. It is shocking. I had never heard such a threat,” he said.
“It is consistent with the new American line: ‘We are No 1 and we stand above the law,’” he added.
10krazy4katz
>9 2wonderY: How horrible that a representative of our government did such a thing!
11prosfilaes
>10 krazy4katz: John Bolton is just scary. In 2017, he told an Iranian group in exile, Mujahedeen Khalq, that he thinks the current Iranian regime will be over by its 40th anniversary (Feb. 2019) and they are a viable alternative. (They aren't; they supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, and hence have no ground support.) He wants to push for military action in Iran, which is insane; it'd be a bloody mess, and there's no chance a stable regime would arise, much less a good free stable government.
12margd
When 'no' means 'no', 'emergency' means 'emergency',
'military deployment' means domestic, political assignment.
Through Thanksgiving and Christmas. Will Trump extend deployment through a hot summer?
Better hope our allies in Syria aren't being slaughtered and Afghan women aen't being stoned in sports arenas in the mean time.
Usually Rs, wonder how soldiers and their families will vote in 2020?
The Pentagon will deploy another 3,750 US troops to Mexican border
Amanda Macias | @amanda_m_macias Feb 3, 2019
The Pentagon announced Sunday a deployment of about 3,750 troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.
The additional troops will bring the total number of forces supporting the border mission to approximately 4,350, according to estimates provided by the Department of Defense.
The latest revelation comes on the heels of a partial government shutdown stemming from the impasse over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to construct a border wall.
...The troop deployment, which was approved by Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan on Jan. 11, will last for 90 days. The border mission includes mobile surveillance capability as well as the emplacement of approximately 150 miles of concertina wire between ports of entry. The Pentagon first approved the deployment of active-duty troops to the Mexico border in October, on the heels of the U.S. midterm congressional elections...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/03/the-pentagon-will-deploy-another-3750-us-troops-...
'military deployment' means domestic, political assignment.
Through Thanksgiving and Christmas. Will Trump extend deployment through a hot summer?
Better hope our allies in Syria aren't being slaughtered and Afghan women aen't being stoned in sports arenas in the mean time.
Usually Rs, wonder how soldiers and their families will vote in 2020?
The Pentagon will deploy another 3,750 US troops to Mexican border
Amanda Macias | @amanda_m_macias Feb 3, 2019
The Pentagon announced Sunday a deployment of about 3,750 troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.
The additional troops will bring the total number of forces supporting the border mission to approximately 4,350, according to estimates provided by the Department of Defense.
The latest revelation comes on the heels of a partial government shutdown stemming from the impasse over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to construct a border wall.
...The troop deployment, which was approved by Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan on Jan. 11, will last for 90 days. The border mission includes mobile surveillance capability as well as the emplacement of approximately 150 miles of concertina wire between ports of entry. The Pentagon first approved the deployment of active-duty troops to the Mexico border in October, on the heels of the U.S. midterm congressional elections...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/03/the-pentagon-will-deploy-another-3750-us-troops-...
13margd
The plan to keep Trump’s taxes hidden
NANCY COOK | 02/05/2019
The Trump administration wants to drag an expected Democratic request for the president’s tax returns into a quagmire of arcane legal arguments.
...The battle between Treasury and the Democrats could plunge the country into yet another norm-breaking moment for the Trump presidency — with the fight stretching on for months and well into the 2020 campaign.
...At the same time, officials intend to publicly cast the request as an nakedly partisan exercise. The two-pronged scheme was developed by a handful of top political appointees and lawyers inside the department — with the ultimate goal of keeping the president’s past returns private...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/05/trump-tax-returns-congress-strategy-11...
NANCY COOK | 02/05/2019
The Trump administration wants to drag an expected Democratic request for the president’s tax returns into a quagmire of arcane legal arguments.
...The battle between Treasury and the Democrats could plunge the country into yet another norm-breaking moment for the Trump presidency — with the fight stretching on for months and well into the 2020 campaign.
...At the same time, officials intend to publicly cast the request as an nakedly partisan exercise. The two-pronged scheme was developed by a handful of top political appointees and lawyers inside the department — with the ultimate goal of keeping the president’s past returns private...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/05/trump-tax-returns-congress-strategy-11...
14margd
Latvia Above Us, Croatia Below
Michelle Goldberg Opinion Columnist | Feb. 4, 2019
...the pro-democracy nonprofit Freedom House, founded in 1941 to mobilize American public opinion against Nazism, has published an annual survey evaluating political freedoms and civil liberties in countries around the world. Using 25 indicators, including electoral processes, individual rights and the rule of law, nations are scored on a 100-point scale...partly funded by the United States government...
The latest edition of “Freedom in the World,” Freedom House’s flagship report, has just been released. For the second year in a row, the United States had a score of 86, down from 94 in 2009. According to Michael Abramowitz, Freedom House’s president, it’s the lowest score for the United States since the survey began (early 1970s).
Though still ranked as free, America now falls below not just Canada and the Nordic countries, but also Greece, Latvia and Mauritius. “The current overall U.S. score puts American democracy closer to struggling counterparts like Croatia than to traditional peers such as Germany or the United Kingdom” ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/opinion/freedom-house-trump-democracy.html
Michelle Goldberg Opinion Columnist | Feb. 4, 2019
...the pro-democracy nonprofit Freedom House, founded in 1941 to mobilize American public opinion against Nazism, has published an annual survey evaluating political freedoms and civil liberties in countries around the world. Using 25 indicators, including electoral processes, individual rights and the rule of law, nations are scored on a 100-point scale...partly funded by the United States government...
The latest edition of “Freedom in the World,” Freedom House’s flagship report, has just been released. For the second year in a row, the United States had a score of 86, down from 94 in 2009. According to Michael Abramowitz, Freedom House’s president, it’s the lowest score for the United States since the survey began (early 1970s).
Though still ranked as free, America now falls below not just Canada and the Nordic countries, but also Greece, Latvia and Mauritius. “The current overall U.S. score puts American democracy closer to struggling counterparts like Croatia than to traditional peers such as Germany or the United Kingdom” ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/opinion/freedom-house-trump-democracy.html
15prosfilaes
>14 margd: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2019 only has reports up for a few countries; I only found Russia, Poland, Hungary, Crimea and the US. I'm wondering why Latvia rated so bad, below its neighboring Baltic states. Croatia is also an EU state, all of which are counted as free except Hungary.
16margd
>12 margd: Meanwhile, NM Governor will no longer ask National Guard to leave their families and jobs to support "the president’s charade of border fear-mongering".
N.M. Governor Pulls National Guard From Border, Citing A 'Charade' At Federal Level
Bill Chappell | February 6, 201910:25 AM ET
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said on Tuesday that President Trump's "border fear-mongering" had misused National Guard troops in her state. The governor is seen here in a photo from Monday.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has ordered the majority of National Guard troops deployed at her state's Southern border to withdraw, condemning what she called a "charade of border fear-mongering" by President Trump, who has warned of an immigration emergency in the region.
"I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the Southern border," Lujan Grisham said, adding that the area has "some of the safest communities in the country."
The governor's order covers most of New Mexico's deployed troops, along with Guard members who have traveled from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wisconsin. In all, 118 National Guard troops have been deployed in New Mexico, the governor's office said...
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/691937342/n-m-governor-pulls-national-guard-from-...
N.M. Governor Pulls National Guard From Border, Citing A 'Charade' At Federal Level
Bill Chappell | February 6, 201910:25 AM ET
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said on Tuesday that President Trump's "border fear-mongering" had misused National Guard troops in her state. The governor is seen here in a photo from Monday.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has ordered the majority of National Guard troops deployed at her state's Southern border to withdraw, condemning what she called a "charade of border fear-mongering" by President Trump, who has warned of an immigration emergency in the region.
"I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the Southern border," Lujan Grisham said, adding that the area has "some of the safest communities in the country."
The governor's order covers most of New Mexico's deployed troops, along with Guard members who have traveled from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wisconsin. In all, 118 National Guard troops have been deployed in New Mexico, the governor's office said...
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/691937342/n-m-governor-pulls-national-guard-from-...
17margd
Trump Defies Congressional Deadline on Khashoggi Report
Peter Baker and Eric Schmitt | Feb. 8, 2019
WASHINGTON — President Trump refused to provide Congress a report on Friday determining who killed the journalist Jamal Khashoggi
...“Consistent with the previous administration’s position and the constitutional separation of powers, the president maintains his discretion to decline to act on congressional committee requests when appropriate,” the Trump administration said in a statement. The statement said the administration had taken action against the killers and would consult with Congress.
But Democrats said Mr. Trump was violating a law known as the Magnitsky Act. It required him to respond 120 days after a request submitted in the fall by committee leaders — including Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — a period that expired Friday...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/us/politics/trump-khashoggi-congress.html
Peter Baker and Eric Schmitt | Feb. 8, 2019
WASHINGTON — President Trump refused to provide Congress a report on Friday determining who killed the journalist Jamal Khashoggi
...“Consistent with the previous administration’s position and the constitutional separation of powers, the president maintains his discretion to decline to act on congressional committee requests when appropriate,” the Trump administration said in a statement. The statement said the administration had taken action against the killers and would consult with Congress.
But Democrats said Mr. Trump was violating a law known as the Magnitsky Act. It required him to respond 120 days after a request submitted in the fall by committee leaders — including Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — a period that expired Friday...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/us/politics/trump-khashoggi-congress.html
18margd
#16 (NM Gov recalls National Guard) contd.
California governor to order National Guard troops back from border with Mexico
Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff | Feb. 11, 2019
Gov. Gavin Newsom's move comes a week after the governor of New Mexico withdrew most of her state's troops from the southern border.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will announce plans Monday to pull back all members of the National Guard who have been deployed to the border with Mexico, saying the state would not be part of the Trump administration's "manufactured crisis."
The 360 National Guard troops in California will be redeployed to fight wildfires, expand the state's Drug Task Force and collect intelligence on drug cartels...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-governor-order-national-guard-tr...
California governor to order National Guard troops back from border with Mexico
Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff | Feb. 11, 2019
Gov. Gavin Newsom's move comes a week after the governor of New Mexico withdrew most of her state's troops from the southern border.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will announce plans Monday to pull back all members of the National Guard who have been deployed to the border with Mexico, saying the state would not be part of the Trump administration's "manufactured crisis."
The 360 National Guard troops in California will be redeployed to fight wildfires, expand the state's Drug Task Force and collect intelligence on drug cartels...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-governor-order-national-guard-tr...
192wonderY
Cliff Sims has an interesting legal argument against the president. If I understand it correctly, he claims that the Trump Campaign, with which he signed an NDA,is suing him for material he collected and wrote about as a federal employee, after the inauguration (and not while he was employed by the campaign.) Further, he claims that the TC is acting "under express authorization and instruction, and certainly with the blessing of, President Trump." Therefore, it is really the federal government that is trying to abridge his first amendment rights. So he is suing the president. Cool!!
Cliff Sims, White House Tell-All Author, Sues Trump for Going After Him Over Book
Cliff Sims, White House Tell-All Author, Sues Trump for Going After Him Over Book
20margd
Putin giggles as the "useful idiot" again delivers...
Trump’s Face-Saving Way Out of Crisis Raises Fears Over Rule of Law
Charlie Savage | Feb. 14, 2019
...no matter what else happens, Mr. Trump’s willingness to invoke emergency powers to circumvent Congress is likely to go down as an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms — setting a precedent that future presidents of both parties may emulate to unilaterally achieve their own policy goals.
Legal specialists have pointed to several statutes that permit the executive branch to redirect military construction funds in a declared emergency that the Trump administration may invoke...
...the Justice Department would surely argue that courts should not even consider the facts, but instead should defer to the president’s determination that an emergency exists...
...the National Emergencies Act of 1976..., while bestowing broad discretion on presidents to decide whether an emergency existed,...also created a powerful check and balance against abuse: Congress could end the declared emergency if majorities in both chambers voted for a resolution to do so. To keep a president’s partisan allies from bottling up such a measure, the law says that if one chamber passed such a resolution, the other one must bring it up for a vote within 18 days.
House Democrats have made clear they will pass such a resolution if Mr. Trump declares a border emergency...it would take only a handful of Republican senators to break ranks for the resolution to pass...
But that check-and-balance mechanism was severely eroded by a 1983 Supreme Court ruling. It held that to have legal effect, a congressional resolution must be presented to the president for signature or veto, like bills are. The next year, lawmakers revised the emergencies act to replace its call for the type of resolution that takes effect immediately with the kind that a president can veto.
Because it takes the votes of two-thirds of each chamber to override a presidential veto, that change has made it far harder, as a matter of political math, for lawmakers to block a dubious emergency declaration. As a result, even if the Senate does initially approve such a resolution, Congress is unlikely to override Mr. Trump’s certain veto of it if most Republican members stick with him.
Against that backdrop, Elizabeth Goitein, who oversaw a recent study of presidential emergency powers for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, said that Mr. Trump’s move, if he indeed followed through, would be an abuse of power and set a precedent that risked making it “open season” for presidents to cynically claim that a national emergency existed to evade democratic constraints.
“Every time this president does something that would have been unthinkable under a previous administration, and every time he acts in a way we’re used to seeing in an authoritarian regime, a little piece of our democracy dies, and this is a pretty big piece,” she said. “I know what the potential is for these laws to be abused once that seal is broken.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-national-emergency-law.html
____________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Karl jonkarl | 3:21 PM - 14 Feb 2019:
SCOOP: DOJ has warned the White House an emergency declaration is nearly certain to be blocked by the courts on at least a temporary basis, preventing immediate implementation of the president's plan to pay for the wall. However, WH believes they can ultimately win on appeal.
ETA_________________________________________________________________
Emergencies Without End: A Primer on Federal States of Emergency
Catherine Padhi | December 8, 2017, 9:00 AM
The United States is in a state of emergency: 28 national ones and many more local. This might come as a surprise, but it isn’t new—this month marks the start of our 39th year in a continuous emergency state. What is an emergency, and how did we get here? This post explains.
...Will these emergencies last forever? Not necessarily. Presidents let some emergencies (like those for the swine flu) expire, and they end others by proclamation. Congress, too, may try to end any national emergency (over presidential veto) at any time. But if the last four decades are any indication, some emergencies are here to stay.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emerge...
ETA__________________________________________________________________
Help me here, lawyers, but doesn't the law that speaks most precisely to a question take precedence?
So, Congress specifying how much wall trumps (so-to-speak) any emergency declaration?
Trump’s Face-Saving Way Out of Crisis Raises Fears Over Rule of Law
Charlie Savage | Feb. 14, 2019
...no matter what else happens, Mr. Trump’s willingness to invoke emergency powers to circumvent Congress is likely to go down as an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms — setting a precedent that future presidents of both parties may emulate to unilaterally achieve their own policy goals.
Legal specialists have pointed to several statutes that permit the executive branch to redirect military construction funds in a declared emergency that the Trump administration may invoke...
...the Justice Department would surely argue that courts should not even consider the facts, but instead should defer to the president’s determination that an emergency exists...
...the National Emergencies Act of 1976..., while bestowing broad discretion on presidents to decide whether an emergency existed,...also created a powerful check and balance against abuse: Congress could end the declared emergency if majorities in both chambers voted for a resolution to do so. To keep a president’s partisan allies from bottling up such a measure, the law says that if one chamber passed such a resolution, the other one must bring it up for a vote within 18 days.
House Democrats have made clear they will pass such a resolution if Mr. Trump declares a border emergency...it would take only a handful of Republican senators to break ranks for the resolution to pass...
But that check-and-balance mechanism was severely eroded by a 1983 Supreme Court ruling. It held that to have legal effect, a congressional resolution must be presented to the president for signature or veto, like bills are. The next year, lawmakers revised the emergencies act to replace its call for the type of resolution that takes effect immediately with the kind that a president can veto.
Because it takes the votes of two-thirds of each chamber to override a presidential veto, that change has made it far harder, as a matter of political math, for lawmakers to block a dubious emergency declaration. As a result, even if the Senate does initially approve such a resolution, Congress is unlikely to override Mr. Trump’s certain veto of it if most Republican members stick with him.
Against that backdrop, Elizabeth Goitein, who oversaw a recent study of presidential emergency powers for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, said that Mr. Trump’s move, if he indeed followed through, would be an abuse of power and set a precedent that risked making it “open season” for presidents to cynically claim that a national emergency existed to evade democratic constraints.
“Every time this president does something that would have been unthinkable under a previous administration, and every time he acts in a way we’re used to seeing in an authoritarian regime, a little piece of our democracy dies, and this is a pretty big piece,” she said. “I know what the potential is for these laws to be abused once that seal is broken.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-national-emergency-law.html
____________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Karl jonkarl | 3:21 PM - 14 Feb 2019:
SCOOP: DOJ has warned the White House an emergency declaration is nearly certain to be blocked by the courts on at least a temporary basis, preventing immediate implementation of the president's plan to pay for the wall. However, WH believes they can ultimately win on appeal.
ETA_________________________________________________________________
Emergencies Without End: A Primer on Federal States of Emergency
Catherine Padhi | December 8, 2017, 9:00 AM
The United States is in a state of emergency: 28 national ones and many more local. This might come as a surprise, but it isn’t new—this month marks the start of our 39th year in a continuous emergency state. What is an emergency, and how did we get here? This post explains.
...Will these emergencies last forever? Not necessarily. Presidents let some emergencies (like those for the swine flu) expire, and they end others by proclamation. Congress, too, may try to end any national emergency (over presidential veto) at any time. But if the last four decades are any indication, some emergencies are here to stay.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emerge...
ETA__________________________________________________________________
Help me here, lawyers, but doesn't the law that speaks most precisely to a question take precedence?
So, Congress specifying how much wall trumps (so-to-speak) any emergency declaration?
21margd
Another misuse of "national security" (tariffs)--yet another high crime/misdemeanor?.
Automakers brace for U.S. government report on import tariffs
David Lawder, David Shepardson | February 15, 2019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A confidential Commerce Department report due to be sent to Donald Trump on Sunday is widely expected to clear the way for the U.S. president to threaten tariffs on imported autos and auto parts by designating the imports a national security threat, auto industry officials said on Friday.
The report’s recommendations may bring the global auto industry a step closer to its worst trade nightmare - U.S. tariffs on millions of imported cars and parts of up to 25 percent that many in the industry fear would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and potentially cost hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the U.S. economy.
The contents of the report are expected to remain classified while Trump considers its recommendations, leaving the industry and major car exporters Japan, the European Union and South Korea in the dark about its consequences.
...Commerce Department (started) in May 2018 at Trump’s request...a Section 232 investigation (of a 1962 trade law, a provision that allows tariffs on items that threaten national security that was scantly used before the Trump Administration)...to determine the effects of imports on national security...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-autos/automakers-brace-for-u-s-gove...
__________________________________________________________________________
As Trump ponders auto tariffs, free-trade Republicans push back
Stephanie Dhue and Kayla Tausche | February 15, 2019
...Business groups are already warning of the economic impacts. A new study by the Center for Automotive Research found a 25 percent tariff on autos and parts would increase the price of a car by an average of $2,750 and as many as 366,900 U.S. jobs would be lost. Its analysis factors in exclusions for South Korea and assumes Canada and Mexico would also be exempt under the yet-to-be-passed U.S. Mexico Canada trade agreement.
Pro-free-trade Republicans are building new tools to push back, in case the president implements new tariffs in the name of national security.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced a bill last month that would give Congress sixty days to approve any proposed tariffs under section 232. It would also apply retroactively to steel and aluminium tariffs, giving Congress 75 days to pass a resolution to approve those tariffs.
...Sen. Robert Portman (R-OH) also has a proposal to address what he sees as the misuse of national security in trade fights. Under his proposal, the Pentagon would make the primary determination that a tariff is needed, not the Commerce Department. And Congress would have the right to disapprove of those measures.
...Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the influential Senate Finance Committee, is working to come up with a compromise between Toomey and Portman's proposals that can get broad bipartisan support. But he brushed off any association between that effort and the Trump Administration's recent actions..."Congress in 1962 delegated too much Constitutional authority to the president," ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/as-trump-ponders-auto-tariffs-free-trade-republi...
Automakers brace for U.S. government report on import tariffs
David Lawder, David Shepardson | February 15, 2019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A confidential Commerce Department report due to be sent to Donald Trump on Sunday is widely expected to clear the way for the U.S. president to threaten tariffs on imported autos and auto parts by designating the imports a national security threat, auto industry officials said on Friday.
The report’s recommendations may bring the global auto industry a step closer to its worst trade nightmare - U.S. tariffs on millions of imported cars and parts of up to 25 percent that many in the industry fear would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and potentially cost hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the U.S. economy.
The contents of the report are expected to remain classified while Trump considers its recommendations, leaving the industry and major car exporters Japan, the European Union and South Korea in the dark about its consequences.
...Commerce Department (started) in May 2018 at Trump’s request...a Section 232 investigation (of a 1962 trade law, a provision that allows tariffs on items that threaten national security that was scantly used before the Trump Administration)...to determine the effects of imports on national security...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-autos/automakers-brace-for-u-s-gove...
__________________________________________________________________________
As Trump ponders auto tariffs, free-trade Republicans push back
Stephanie Dhue and Kayla Tausche | February 15, 2019
...Business groups are already warning of the economic impacts. A new study by the Center for Automotive Research found a 25 percent tariff on autos and parts would increase the price of a car by an average of $2,750 and as many as 366,900 U.S. jobs would be lost. Its analysis factors in exclusions for South Korea and assumes Canada and Mexico would also be exempt under the yet-to-be-passed U.S. Mexico Canada trade agreement.
Pro-free-trade Republicans are building new tools to push back, in case the president implements new tariffs in the name of national security.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced a bill last month that would give Congress sixty days to approve any proposed tariffs under section 232. It would also apply retroactively to steel and aluminium tariffs, giving Congress 75 days to pass a resolution to approve those tariffs.
...Sen. Robert Portman (R-OH) also has a proposal to address what he sees as the misuse of national security in trade fights. Under his proposal, the Pentagon would make the primary determination that a tariff is needed, not the Commerce Department. And Congress would have the right to disapprove of those measures.
...Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the influential Senate Finance Committee, is working to come up with a compromise between Toomey and Portman's proposals that can get broad bipartisan support. But he brushed off any association between that effort and the Trump Administration's recent actions..."Congress in 1962 delegated too much Constitutional authority to the president," ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/as-trump-ponders-auto-tariffs-free-trade-republi...
22jjwilson61
>20 margd: The next year, lawmakers revised the emergencies act to replace its call for the type of resolution that takes effect immediately with the kind that a president can veto.
I wonder why they didn't change the law so that the emergency automatically expires after a month unless Congress passes a resolution, that can be vetoed, affirming it.
I wonder why they didn't change the law so that the emergency automatically expires after a month unless Congress passes a resolution, that can be vetoed, affirming it.
23proximity1
>19 2wonderY:
To the extent that these points are correct,
"that the Trump Campaign, with which (Sims) signed an NDA, is (taking him to settlement via arbitration) for material he collected and wrote about as a federal employee, after the inauguration,"
and
" TC is acting "under express authorization and instruction, and certainly with the blessing of, President Trump."
then Trump probably isn't going to get far in the arbitration or do well defending against Sims' suit in federal court.
I agree that the case amounts to an attempt by official government (i.e. the Trump White House) to infringe illegally on Sims' First-Amendment rights.
I'm just not sure which, for you, is the basis of the comment, "Cool!!" : the fact that a president of the United States might get smacked down by a federal court for trying to improperly gag a former-employee of a presidential election-campaign or, rather, simply the fact that it's Donald Trump whose smacking down should so delight you.
24margd
A Nation of Weavers
David Brooks | Feb. 18, 2019
The social renaissance is happening from the ground up.
...We all create a shared moral ecology through the daily decisions of our lives. When we stereotype, abuse, impugn motives and lie about each other, we’ve ripped the social fabric and encouraged more ugliness. When we love across boundaries, listen patiently, see deeply and make someone feel known, we’ve woven it and reinforced generosity. As Charles Péguy said, “The revolution is moral or not at all.”
So the big question is: How do we take the success the Weavers are having on the local level and make it national? The Weavers are building relationships one by one, which takes time. Relationships do not scale.
But norms scale. If you can change the culture, you can change behavior on a large scale. If you can change the lens through which people see the world, as these Weavers have changed mine, then you can change the way people want to be in the world and act in the world. So that’s our job. To shift the culture so that it emphasizes individualism less and relationalism more.
Culture changes when a small group of people, often on the margins of society, find a better way to live, and other people begin to copy them. These Weavers have found a better way to live. We at Weave — and all of us — need to illuminate their example, synthesize their values so we understand what it means to be a relationalist and not an individualist. We need to create hubs where these decentralized networks can come together for solidarity and support. We need to create a shared Weaver identity. In 1960, few people called themselves feminists. By 1980, millions did. Just creating that social identity and that sense of mutual purpose is an act of great power.
I guess my ask is that you declare your own personal declaration of interdependence and decide to become a Weaver instead of a ripper. This is partly about communication. Every time you assault and stereotype a person, you’ve ripped the social fabric. Every time you see that person deeply and make him or her feel known, you’ve woven it...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/opinion/culture-compassion.html
David Brooks | Feb. 18, 2019
The social renaissance is happening from the ground up.
...We all create a shared moral ecology through the daily decisions of our lives. When we stereotype, abuse, impugn motives and lie about each other, we’ve ripped the social fabric and encouraged more ugliness. When we love across boundaries, listen patiently, see deeply and make someone feel known, we’ve woven it and reinforced generosity. As Charles Péguy said, “The revolution is moral or not at all.”
So the big question is: How do we take the success the Weavers are having on the local level and make it national? The Weavers are building relationships one by one, which takes time. Relationships do not scale.
But norms scale. If you can change the culture, you can change behavior on a large scale. If you can change the lens through which people see the world, as these Weavers have changed mine, then you can change the way people want to be in the world and act in the world. So that’s our job. To shift the culture so that it emphasizes individualism less and relationalism more.
Culture changes when a small group of people, often on the margins of society, find a better way to live, and other people begin to copy them. These Weavers have found a better way to live. We at Weave — and all of us — need to illuminate their example, synthesize their values so we understand what it means to be a relationalist and not an individualist. We need to create hubs where these decentralized networks can come together for solidarity and support. We need to create a shared Weaver identity. In 1960, few people called themselves feminists. By 1980, millions did. Just creating that social identity and that sense of mutual purpose is an act of great power.
I guess my ask is that you declare your own personal declaration of interdependence and decide to become a Weaver instead of a ripper. This is partly about communication. Every time you assault and stereotype a person, you’ve ripped the social fabric. Every time you see that person deeply and make him or her feel known, you’ve woven it...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/opinion/culture-compassion.html
25proximity1
"Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."
Harry Truman
26margd
The National Emergency and the President’s Lawyers
Bob Bauer | February 16, 2019
...News reports have indicated that Cipollone warned the president of a “high litigation risk” if Trump declared a national emergency. His office apparently issued “repeated warnings” and was both “frustrated” and “skeptical of the commander in chief’s rationale.” Cipolline reportedly expressed his concern on a remarkable telephone call with the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The New York Times reports:
...During his final call with Mr. Trump, McConnell looped in the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who expressed misgivings about the emergency declaration, telling an annoyed Mr. Trump that it would prompt several serious lawsuits.
Mr. McConnell, quickly shifting from opposing the declaration to managing its rollout, snapped back, “Who cares? This is America — everybody sues everybody else,” according to a person the leader spoke to late Thursday.
One could read this episode several ways, but certainly the most reasonable interpretation is that neither the president nor the majority leader “cared” about the constitutional and legal authority for the declaration. The president wished to save face when Congress presented him with a resolution that allocated roughly 20 percent of the amount he wanted. The Republican leadership wanted to avoid another shutdown. So it is not surprising that the lawyers were “frustrated,” having expressed constitutional and legal reservations that the president and McConnell cast aside...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/national-emergency-and-presidents-lawyers
_____________________________________________________________________
16 States Sue to Stop Trump’s Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall
Charlie Savage and Robert Pear | Feb. 18, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/us/politics/national-emergency-lawsuits-trump...
Bob Bauer | February 16, 2019
...News reports have indicated that Cipollone warned the president of a “high litigation risk” if Trump declared a national emergency. His office apparently issued “repeated warnings” and was both “frustrated” and “skeptical of the commander in chief’s rationale.” Cipolline reportedly expressed his concern on a remarkable telephone call with the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The New York Times reports:
...During his final call with Mr. Trump, McConnell looped in the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who expressed misgivings about the emergency declaration, telling an annoyed Mr. Trump that it would prompt several serious lawsuits.
Mr. McConnell, quickly shifting from opposing the declaration to managing its rollout, snapped back, “Who cares? This is America — everybody sues everybody else,” according to a person the leader spoke to late Thursday.
One could read this episode several ways, but certainly the most reasonable interpretation is that neither the president nor the majority leader “cared” about the constitutional and legal authority for the declaration. The president wished to save face when Congress presented him with a resolution that allocated roughly 20 percent of the amount he wanted. The Republican leadership wanted to avoid another shutdown. So it is not surprising that the lawyers were “frustrated,” having expressed constitutional and legal reservations that the president and McConnell cast aside...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/national-emergency-and-presidents-lawyers
_____________________________________________________________________
16 States Sue to Stop Trump’s Use of Emergency Powers to Build Border Wall
Charlie Savage and Robert Pear | Feb. 18, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/us/politics/national-emergency-lawsuits-trump...
27John5918
Study warns of global rise in autocratic leaders 'hijacking' laws for own ends (Guardian)
Poland the worst offender as global justice index identifies decline in checks on government power for second successive year
Not specifically aimed at the USA, but a worrying trend nevertheless.
Poland the worst offender as global justice index identifies decline in checks on government power for second successive year
Not specifically aimed at the USA, but a worrying trend nevertheless.
28margd
Two recent opinions by Justice Clarence Thomas should alarm us all
Erwin Chemerinsky | Mar 05, 2019
...Few Supreme Court decisions are more central to our criminal justice system than the 1963 ruling in Gideon vs. Wainwright, which held that a person being tried in state court and facing a possible prison sentence has the right to state-appointed legal counsel.
That guarantee was the logical culmination of a series of decisions beginning in the late 19th century that applied the provisions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, not just to the federal government.
...Under (Supreme Court Justice Clarence) Thomas’ view, there is no constitutional right to counsel in criminal cases in state court, even in capital cases or when there could be a life sentence. It is a chilling view of criminal justice, yet two other justices, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, agreed with that reasoning and joined all or part of his dissent.
Thomas’ other disturbing reasoning came in an opinion...thankfully not joined by any other justice,...call(ing) into question what is generally regarded as the most important freedom of speech decision in American history: New York Times vs. Sullivan.
Times vs. Sullivan involved a defamation suit brought by the Montgomery, Ala., police commissioner against the New York Times and four black clergymen for an advertisement criticizing the handling of demonstrations. A jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 under Alabama’s defamation law. The Supreme Court expressly held that the 1st Amendment applied and explained that “what a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. The fear of damage awards under a rule such as that invoked by the Alabama courts here may be markedly more inhibiting than the fear of prosecution under a criminal statute.”
The ruling made it difficult for those holding or running for public office to recover for defamation, on the principle that the fear of such judgments could inhibit a vigorous free press. The court spoke powerfully on the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
In his opinion, Thomas said that New York Times vs. Sullivan was wrongly decided, and that the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it. He wrote that “New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” In Thomas’ view, there is no constitutional limit on civil suits based on speech, including defamation liability. At a time when we have a president who is attacking the press as an “enemy of the people,” it is deeply disturbing to have a Supreme Court justice urging overruling one of the most important decisions protecting the press...
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supreme-court-clarence-t...
Erwin Chemerinsky | Mar 05, 2019
...Few Supreme Court decisions are more central to our criminal justice system than the 1963 ruling in Gideon vs. Wainwright, which held that a person being tried in state court and facing a possible prison sentence has the right to state-appointed legal counsel.
That guarantee was the logical culmination of a series of decisions beginning in the late 19th century that applied the provisions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, not just to the federal government.
...Under (Supreme Court Justice Clarence) Thomas’ view, there is no constitutional right to counsel in criminal cases in state court, even in capital cases or when there could be a life sentence. It is a chilling view of criminal justice, yet two other justices, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, agreed with that reasoning and joined all or part of his dissent.
Thomas’ other disturbing reasoning came in an opinion...thankfully not joined by any other justice,...call(ing) into question what is generally regarded as the most important freedom of speech decision in American history: New York Times vs. Sullivan.
Times vs. Sullivan involved a defamation suit brought by the Montgomery, Ala., police commissioner against the New York Times and four black clergymen for an advertisement criticizing the handling of demonstrations. A jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 under Alabama’s defamation law. The Supreme Court expressly held that the 1st Amendment applied and explained that “what a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. The fear of damage awards under a rule such as that invoked by the Alabama courts here may be markedly more inhibiting than the fear of prosecution under a criminal statute.”
The ruling made it difficult for those holding or running for public office to recover for defamation, on the principle that the fear of such judgments could inhibit a vigorous free press. The court spoke powerfully on the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
In his opinion, Thomas said that New York Times vs. Sullivan was wrongly decided, and that the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it. He wrote that “New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” In Thomas’ view, there is no constitutional limit on civil suits based on speech, including defamation liability. At a time when we have a president who is attacking the press as an “enemy of the people,” it is deeply disturbing to have a Supreme Court justice urging overruling one of the most important decisions protecting the press...
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supreme-court-clarence-t...
29margd
The peaceful transfer of power...
Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to de-legitimize the 2020 election
Chris Cillizza | March 6, 2019
Even as the 2020 race begins in earnest, President Donald Trump is already suggesting that Democrats cannot beat him fairly -- raising the specter that if he loses next November, he will suggest that the election was not legitimate.
"The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see," Trump tweeted Tuesday, referring to House Democrats' launching of a broad-scale investigation into him. "When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!"...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/donald-trump-2020-election-illegitimate/...
_________________________________________________________________________
‘Donald Trump is not above starting a civil war’:
Donny Deutsch predicts there won’t be a peaceful transition of power
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/donald-trump-not-starting-civil-war-donny-deuts...
Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to de-legitimize the 2020 election
Chris Cillizza | March 6, 2019
Even as the 2020 race begins in earnest, President Donald Trump is already suggesting that Democrats cannot beat him fairly -- raising the specter that if he loses next November, he will suggest that the election was not legitimate.
"The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see," Trump tweeted Tuesday, referring to House Democrats' launching of a broad-scale investigation into him. "When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!"...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/donald-trump-2020-election-illegitimate/...
_________________________________________________________________________
‘Donald Trump is not above starting a civil war’:
Donny Deutsch predicts there won’t be a peaceful transition of power
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/donald-trump-not-starting-civil-war-donny-deuts...
302wonderY
Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in defying Trump.
Senate rejects Trump border emergency as Republicans defect
The Senate voted 59-41 to cancel Trump’s February proclamation of a border emergency, which he invoked to spend $3.6 billion more for border barriers than Congress had approved.
from the NYT article:
Ultimately, a dozen Republicans joined Senate Democrats in supporting the House-passed resolution of disapproval: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Lee of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Jerry Moran of Kansas.
Senate rejects Trump border emergency as Republicans defect
The Senate voted 59-41 to cancel Trump’s February proclamation of a border emergency, which he invoked to spend $3.6 billion more for border barriers than Congress had approved.
from the NYT article:
Ultimately, a dozen Republicans joined Senate Democrats in supporting the House-passed resolution of disapproval: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Lee of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Jerry Moran of Kansas.
312wonderY
Jeremy Stahl at Slate
Trump Just Said His Friends in the Military, Police, and a Biker Group Might Get “Tough” on Democrats
While it’s perhaps impossible to dissect the precise meaning of Trump’s words here, it appears to be a vague threat that “tough” supporters in the military and police—who are presumably armed and whose work can involve using physical violence—will do something that will result in a “very bad, very bad” outcome if pushed to a “certain point” by the president’s political opponents.* In this context, that certain point might be political investigations reaching a conclusion of impeachment, or maybe just efforts to enforce subpoenas against the president, his family members, and allies. (It could also come in the context of the president’s “vicious” political opponents voting him out of office in the 2020 election, which the president has repeatedly said Democrats cannot win “legitimately.”)
Perhaps the “very bad” thing that would happen as a result of “tough” Trump supporters in the military, police, and Bikers for Trump being pushed “to a certain point” would be taking part in a peaceful protest that gets out of hand due to factors beyond their control. Maybe he’s talking about a less violent form of aggression that’s nonetheless “very bad, very bad.”
But the more obvious—and plausible—interpretation seems to me to be that the president is suggesting these armed political supporters would respond violently if his presidency is imperiled. Whether or not you view this as empty bluster, that suggestion alone should chill supporters of liberal democracy as much as anything Trump has ever said.
Trump Just Said His Friends in the Military, Police, and a Biker Group Might Get “Tough” on Democrats
While it’s perhaps impossible to dissect the precise meaning of Trump’s words here, it appears to be a vague threat that “tough” supporters in the military and police—who are presumably armed and whose work can involve using physical violence—will do something that will result in a “very bad, very bad” outcome if pushed to a “certain point” by the president’s political opponents.* In this context, that certain point might be political investigations reaching a conclusion of impeachment, or maybe just efforts to enforce subpoenas against the president, his family members, and allies. (It could also come in the context of the president’s “vicious” political opponents voting him out of office in the 2020 election, which the president has repeatedly said Democrats cannot win “legitimately.”)
Perhaps the “very bad” thing that would happen as a result of “tough” Trump supporters in the military, police, and Bikers for Trump being pushed “to a certain point” would be taking part in a peaceful protest that gets out of hand due to factors beyond their control. Maybe he’s talking about a less violent form of aggression that’s nonetheless “very bad, very bad.”
But the more obvious—and plausible—interpretation seems to me to be that the president is suggesting these armed political supporters would respond violently if his presidency is imperiled. Whether or not you view this as empty bluster, that suggestion alone should chill supporters of liberal democracy as much as anything Trump has ever said.
32margd
>30 2wonderY: contd. Without unnecessarily endangering R senators running in 2020, enough Republicans voted against Trump's emergency declaration to send a message to the courts.
How you slow down a wannabe authoritarian
Jennifer Rubin | March 15, 2019
...As a legal matter, the sponsor of the House (resolution) on which the Senate voted (rejecting Trump's emergency declaration), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), had an interesting observation. “I believe that there is an incredible legal significance to Thursday’s vote. Think about it: both chambers of Congress, one Democratic and one Republican, voted to terminate the President’s emergency declaration. As the courts review this, that will be a significant legal fact.”
Constitutional scholar Larry Tribe quite agrees that although “the Senate’s 59-41 vote wasn’t veto-proof,” it will help Congress as the case proceeds through the courts. ...the strong bipartisan vote would be support for the proposition that the courts must halt the president’s usurpation of congressional authority, which the National Emergencies Act never contemplated.
Tribe’s co-author for “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment,” Joshua Matz, says that although the vote technically should not determine the outcome, “as a matter of legal realism, however, Thursday’s vote signals to the judiciary that Congress disagrees profoundly with Trump’s emergency declaration. This is not a case where the courts have been asked to rule against the political branches. It’s a case where the courts would vindicate majority sentiment in Congress were they to rule against Trump.” He added, “That may not matter formally, but it will change the political and cultural climate in which courts consider the question of whether Trump’s emergency declaration is invalid.”...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/15/how-you-slow-down-wanna-be-au...
How you slow down a wannabe authoritarian
Jennifer Rubin | March 15, 2019
...As a legal matter, the sponsor of the House (resolution) on which the Senate voted (rejecting Trump's emergency declaration), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), had an interesting observation. “I believe that there is an incredible legal significance to Thursday’s vote. Think about it: both chambers of Congress, one Democratic and one Republican, voted to terminate the President’s emergency declaration. As the courts review this, that will be a significant legal fact.”
Constitutional scholar Larry Tribe quite agrees that although “the Senate’s 59-41 vote wasn’t veto-proof,” it will help Congress as the case proceeds through the courts. ...the strong bipartisan vote would be support for the proposition that the courts must halt the president’s usurpation of congressional authority, which the National Emergencies Act never contemplated.
Tribe’s co-author for “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment,” Joshua Matz, says that although the vote technically should not determine the outcome, “as a matter of legal realism, however, Thursday’s vote signals to the judiciary that Congress disagrees profoundly with Trump’s emergency declaration. This is not a case where the courts have been asked to rule against the political branches. It’s a case where the courts would vindicate majority sentiment in Congress were they to rule against Trump.” He added, “That may not matter formally, but it will change the political and cultural climate in which courts consider the question of whether Trump’s emergency declaration is invalid.”...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/15/how-you-slow-down-wanna-be-au...
33JGL53
> 31
Lawrence O'Donnell gives the best explanation of why trump's threat is just another lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI7pH7MyNSk
Lawrence O'Donnell gives the best explanation of why trump's threat is just another lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI7pH7MyNSk
34margd
>29 margd: the peaceful transfer of power...
...During the eventful Rose Garden presser (with Brazilian President Bolsonaro), Trump also announced the “twilight hour of socialism has arrived” in the Western Hemisphere, citing unrest in Nicaragua, and change in Cuba.
“And also, hopefully, arrived in our great country,” Trump pivoted, attacking the growing Dem field of White House hopefuls.
“The last thing we want in the United States is socialism,” he warned....
Lisa de Moraes | March 19, 2019
https://deadline.com/2019/03/donald-trump-twitter-facebook-google-cnn-investigat...
...During the eventful Rose Garden presser (with Brazilian President Bolsonaro), Trump also announced the “twilight hour of socialism has arrived” in the Western Hemisphere, citing unrest in Nicaragua, and change in Cuba.
“And also, hopefully, arrived in our great country,” Trump pivoted, attacking the growing Dem field of White House hopefuls.
“The last thing we want in the United States is socialism,” he warned....
Lisa de Moraes | March 19, 2019
https://deadline.com/2019/03/donald-trump-twitter-facebook-google-cnn-investigat...
35margd
George T Conway III and others discuss checks & balances
"Rule of law in America", co-hosted by ICAP and Checks & Balances at Georgetown Law, March 8, 2019.
https://bit.ly/2Hf5kN8
1
0:59
George T. Conway III: If Trump controlled Justice Department, "we'd have a banana republic."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL2QPFPgZ63f9oHecPHwy3VE2Bt2hTbpGf&v=aYxn...
5:27
George Conway on the Rule of Law and Donald Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtbmffgVvvQ
2
0:40
George T. Conway III: "You can't have a free country" if press is silenced through policy
3
1:15
Professor Anthony Clark Arend on the "denigration" of the U.S. judiciary
4
1:17
Mary McCord: "Two more years of attacks on our institutions" could break America's trust
▶
0:54
Stuart M. Gerson: I worry about the "erosion of legislative autonomy"
6
0:48
Joshua Geltzer: Trump not the first world leader to silence his critics on social media
7
0:34
Alan Charles Raul: We need to do a better job of teaching younger generations the value of America
"Rule of law in America", co-hosted by ICAP and Checks & Balances at Georgetown Law, March 8, 2019.
https://bit.ly/2Hf5kN8
1
0:59
George T. Conway III: If Trump controlled Justice Department, "we'd have a banana republic."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL2QPFPgZ63f9oHecPHwy3VE2Bt2hTbpGf&v=aYxn...
5:27
George Conway on the Rule of Law and Donald Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtbmffgVvvQ
2
0:40
George T. Conway III: "You can't have a free country" if press is silenced through policy
3
1:15
Professor Anthony Clark Arend on the "denigration" of the U.S. judiciary
4
1:17
Mary McCord: "Two more years of attacks on our institutions" could break America's trust
▶
0:54
Stuart M. Gerson: I worry about the "erosion of legislative autonomy"
6
0:48
Joshua Geltzer: Trump not the first world leader to silence his critics on social media
7
0:34
Alan Charles Raul: We need to do a better job of teaching younger generations the value of America
36proximity1
You people are hilarious.
The whole bunch of you are far better candidates for budding dictators.
Just read the fucking bullshit you post. Your tolerance is laughably low. You'd have relegated Trump's supporters to Gulags, concentration and forced-labor camps and coercive medically-ordered confinements with "treatments" for intractable deviance from established good-behavior (as you only too happily define it) and "dangerous mental disorders" --you'd have done all that long ago if you thought for a moment that you could actually get away with it.
Of course, you have not the slightest clue about your propensities for all these because you have, practically, just zero fucking insight into yourselves.
Not just "in Britain today." The shame and the hell of it is that this very same could and does just as accurately describe the socio-political mess in the United States:
"That vast disconnect between elite authority and lived experience is central to what’s broken inBritain the United States today."
__________________________________
Sam Harris blog: "Making Sense" #151 - WILL WE DESTROY THE FUTURE? | A Conversation with Nick Bostrom
_______________________________
* Personally, I'm not sure quite how to distinguish clearly between these: "fascists on the 'Right'" on one hand, versus "fascists within Islam" on the other hand.
The whole bunch of you are far better candidates for budding dictators.
Just read the fucking bullshit you post. Your tolerance is laughably low. You'd have relegated Trump's supporters to Gulags, concentration and forced-labor camps and coercive medically-ordered confinements with "treatments" for intractable deviance from established good-behavior (as you only too happily define it) and "dangerous mental disorders" --you'd have done all that long ago if you thought for a moment that you could actually get away with it.
Of course, you have not the slightest clue about your propensities for all these because you have, practically, just zero fucking insight into yourselves.
The Guardian (London) | Opinion | Brexit |
Britain’s real democratic crisis? The broken link between voters and MPs |
by Aditya Chakrabortty | 20 March, 2019
... ...
Why is a stalemate among 650 MPs a matter for such concern, yet the slow, grinding extinction of mining communities and light-industrial suburbs passed over in silence? Why does May’s wretched career cover the first 16 pages of a Sunday paper while a Torbay woman told by her council that she can 'manage being homeless', and even sleeping rough, is granted a few inches downpage in a few of the worthies? Oh, some may say, they have no connection. Except that the death sentence handed to stretches of the country and the vindictive spending cuts imposed by the former chancellor George Osborne are a large part of why Britain voted for Brexit in the first place.
A couple of years ago, I wrote here about a woman from Newcastle who greeted warnings that leaving the EU would damage the economy by shouting: 'That’s your bloody GDP. Not ours.' In the same spirit of blunt truth-telling, we should tell Westminster that this is their bloody crisis – not ours. But we have long suffered under a crisis in how we are governed.
Far away from the Speaker’s House these old, pre-2016 crises rumble on. In the spirit of that Geordie heckler, let us define them crudely. We have economic policymakers who can’t grasp how the economy has changed, elected politicians who share hardly anything in common with their own voters, and journalists who too often display a remarkable incuriousness about the country they are meant to be reporting on.
... ...
________________________
… …
Not just "in Britain today." The shame and the hell of it is that this very same could and does just as accurately describe the socio-political mess in the United States:
"That vast disconnect between elite authority and lived experience is central to what’s broken in
__________________________________
Sam Harris blog: "Making Sense" #151 - WILL WE DESTROY THE FUTURE? | A Conversation with Nick Bostrom
..."And the effect of all this is to make it much harder to oppose extremism—whether it comes from fascists on the 'Right' or fascists within Islam." * (@ 00:08 mins. 22 secs.)
_______________________________
* Personally, I'm not sure quite how to distinguish clearly between these: "fascists on the 'Right'" on one hand, versus "fascists within Islam" on the other hand.
37margd
How to Understand the End of the Mueller Investigation (Hint: You Can’t Yet)
Benjamin Wittes | March 23, 2019
...The measure of success for the Mueller investigation was always whether the matters handed to it were investigated thoroughly and completely and prosecuted fairly and justly, and whether the counterintelligence concerns that gave rise to the probe were addressed seriously. The end of the investigation is thus, first and foremost, an occasion for relief that this has apparently taken place to the satisfaction of one Robert Swann Mueller, III. This is no small democratic accomplishment, and it was not a foregone conclusion in an environment in which the president has repeatedly sought to smear and frustrate the investigation—and even sought to remove Mueller from its helm...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-understand-end-mueller-investigation-hint-you-ca...
Benjamin Wittes | March 23, 2019
...The measure of success for the Mueller investigation was always whether the matters handed to it were investigated thoroughly and completely and prosecuted fairly and justly, and whether the counterintelligence concerns that gave rise to the probe were addressed seriously. The end of the investigation is thus, first and foremost, an occasion for relief that this has apparently taken place to the satisfaction of one Robert Swann Mueller, III. This is no small democratic accomplishment, and it was not a foregone conclusion in an environment in which the president has repeatedly sought to smear and frustrate the investigation—and even sought to remove Mueller from its helm...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-understand-end-mueller-investigation-hint-you-ca...
38margd
Connor O'Brien @connorobrienNH (Politico): 11:46 AM - 27 Mar 2019
JUST IN: House Defense Appropriations chair Pete Visclosky rejects DoD’s bid to shift $1B to a border wall. DoD says it will do so without approval.
“With this unilateral action, the historic and unprecedented comity...between the Committee and the Department has been breached.”
(See tweet with letter at letter at https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH.)
JUST IN: House Defense Appropriations chair Pete Visclosky rejects DoD’s bid to shift $1B to a border wall. DoD says it will do so without approval.
“With this unilateral action, the historic and unprecedented comity...between the Committee and the Department has been breached.”
(See tweet with letter at letter at https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH.)
39margd
How the White House Plays Hardball on Congressional Oversight of Security Clearances
Margaret Taylor | March 27, 2019
...Rep. Elijah Cummings, Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform...opened (formal investigation on the White House’s handling of security clearances for President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter, Ivanka Trump) on the White House security clearance process on Jan. 23...
...(new White House counsel Pat) Cipollone’s Jan. 31 reply to Cummings shows the administration’s current strategy. Like prior responses to committee members on the security clearance issue, the letter (1) does not make a claim of executive privilege; (2) does not address any of the factual premises of the committee’s investigation; and (3) contains no meaningful concession or accomodation to the chairman’s request for documents or interviews.
Unlike any of the prior responses, the letter repeatedly uses legal language drawn from the case of United States v. AT&T, which stands for the proposition that in cases involving claims of executive privilege courts will decide the issue only if the executive and legislative branches have tried, in good faith, but failed to reach an accommodation. Cipollone’s short letter of less than two pages contains five references to the administration’s interest in “accommodation” of the committee’s needs. But these references are best understood as preparation for litigation. They are in stark contrast to the substance of the response—which is, in essence, to stake out an absolutist legal position that the president’s plenary authority over national security information and broad discretion in selecting and communicating with his immediate advisers effectively precludes the committee’s interest in access to any meaningful documents or information in this area.
...The White House counsel’s letters effectively dismiss the notion that Congress has any substantial constitutional interest in the issues raised by the committee and ignore the facts presented by the committee. This absolutist position makes it difficult to see how the committee could propose any accommodation that would meet its needs while accommodating the White House’s position...
What’s Next?
...debates over the scope of executive privilege are likely to play out in the context of negotiations between House Democrats and the Trump administration, with each side making political calculations about what fights are worth having, when it makes sense to fight and when it makes sense to cooperate. In other words, each side will have to consider what it can reasonably get away with in the current political environment.
...Traditionally, the standards for asserting executive privilege focus on protecting national security or maintaining secrecy when it is in the public’s interest to do so. Allowing the executive branch to build a dubious case for a more expansive view risks hindering a fundamental principle of proper checks and balances. Abuse of power will follow if the executive branch is allowed to create a norm of secrecy and distrust in its functioning.
It was always clear that Congress would need to commit time and energy to using constitutional tools to vindicate its oversight prerogatives. In view of what we now know about the White House’s current strategy, it seems that obtaining even a fraction of the information Congress seeks will be difficult. The letter-writing phase of this particular investigation has reached its conclusion without much forward progress. If informal negotiations with the White House go nowhere, it would seem the committee will have to either back off this particular inquiry (perhaps prioritizing a more promising inquiry) or else move to the next steps in the process—subpoenas and, if needed, the threat of contempt citations. In the past, such moves have spurred meaningful negotiations with the executive branch. Congress could also look to its other institutional tools to give teeth to its oversight prerogatives, such as delaying confirmation hearings, refusing to move forward on legislation the president needs to achieve his agenda and withholding support for administration programs with the power of the purse. In theory, more extreme measures could follow, such as initiating impeachment proceedings or perhaps even utilizing arcane arrest powers (which exist but aren’t often utilized, as I explained in an earlier piece on Lawfare).
...Congress is more likely to be successful if it frames its actions as part of a sustained campaign of support for transparency and accountability in governance. If the legislature is unable to position itself as the proper repository for the American public’s trust on these matters, it risks setting precedents that will erode Congress’s role as a check on the presidency.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-white-house-plays-hardball-congressional-oversig...
Margaret Taylor | March 27, 2019
...Rep. Elijah Cummings, Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform...opened (formal investigation on the White House’s handling of security clearances for President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter, Ivanka Trump) on the White House security clearance process on Jan. 23...
...(new White House counsel Pat) Cipollone’s Jan. 31 reply to Cummings shows the administration’s current strategy. Like prior responses to committee members on the security clearance issue, the letter (1) does not make a claim of executive privilege; (2) does not address any of the factual premises of the committee’s investigation; and (3) contains no meaningful concession or accomodation to the chairman’s request for documents or interviews.
Unlike any of the prior responses, the letter repeatedly uses legal language drawn from the case of United States v. AT&T, which stands for the proposition that in cases involving claims of executive privilege courts will decide the issue only if the executive and legislative branches have tried, in good faith, but failed to reach an accommodation. Cipollone’s short letter of less than two pages contains five references to the administration’s interest in “accommodation” of the committee’s needs. But these references are best understood as preparation for litigation. They are in stark contrast to the substance of the response—which is, in essence, to stake out an absolutist legal position that the president’s plenary authority over national security information and broad discretion in selecting and communicating with his immediate advisers effectively precludes the committee’s interest in access to any meaningful documents or information in this area.
...The White House counsel’s letters effectively dismiss the notion that Congress has any substantial constitutional interest in the issues raised by the committee and ignore the facts presented by the committee. This absolutist position makes it difficult to see how the committee could propose any accommodation that would meet its needs while accommodating the White House’s position...
What’s Next?
...debates over the scope of executive privilege are likely to play out in the context of negotiations between House Democrats and the Trump administration, with each side making political calculations about what fights are worth having, when it makes sense to fight and when it makes sense to cooperate. In other words, each side will have to consider what it can reasonably get away with in the current political environment.
...Traditionally, the standards for asserting executive privilege focus on protecting national security or maintaining secrecy when it is in the public’s interest to do so. Allowing the executive branch to build a dubious case for a more expansive view risks hindering a fundamental principle of proper checks and balances. Abuse of power will follow if the executive branch is allowed to create a norm of secrecy and distrust in its functioning.
It was always clear that Congress would need to commit time and energy to using constitutional tools to vindicate its oversight prerogatives. In view of what we now know about the White House’s current strategy, it seems that obtaining even a fraction of the information Congress seeks will be difficult. The letter-writing phase of this particular investigation has reached its conclusion without much forward progress. If informal negotiations with the White House go nowhere, it would seem the committee will have to either back off this particular inquiry (perhaps prioritizing a more promising inquiry) or else move to the next steps in the process—subpoenas and, if needed, the threat of contempt citations. In the past, such moves have spurred meaningful negotiations with the executive branch. Congress could also look to its other institutional tools to give teeth to its oversight prerogatives, such as delaying confirmation hearings, refusing to move forward on legislation the president needs to achieve his agenda and withholding support for administration programs with the power of the purse. In theory, more extreme measures could follow, such as initiating impeachment proceedings or perhaps even utilizing arcane arrest powers (which exist but aren’t often utilized, as I explained in an earlier piece on Lawfare).
...Congress is more likely to be successful if it frames its actions as part of a sustained campaign of support for transparency and accountability in governance. If the legislature is unable to position itself as the proper repository for the American public’s trust on these matters, it risks setting precedents that will erode Congress’s role as a check on the presidency.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-white-house-plays-hardball-congressional-oversig...
40proximity1
"Constitution and Norms under Attack"
What utter BULLSHIT !
_______________________
The only "attack" on the Constitutional "norms" of the government and political order of the United States going on since the presidential election campaigns of 2016 has been that of certain people, partisans of established national political parties and many elements of the nation's most powerful and influential press corps--individuals and groups-- who, being driven by their psychotic obsession with a nation-wide vendetta, have stopped at nothing in their efforts to get rid of an elected president, namely, Donald Trump, by the most expeditious means possible, distorting statutes and Constitutional principles in the process.
That effort has now been revealed to have been devoid of reasonable grounds from the very first and an investigation, with Trump as its center of interest as a potential criminal defendant, has brought exactly nothing to light which reasonably implicates Trump in any kind of criminal act consistent with the investigation's premises.
On the contrary, the investigation has brought to light evidence of the elaborate and concerted effort to subject Trump, first, as a candidate, and, second, as a duly-elected president, to what amounted to a modern-day witch-hunt.
This three-year long episode is the latest among the worst moral and political national disgraces in the 230 year history of the United States.
In the 1950s, By this time in the process of the 1950s national-disgrace which came to be known as the McCarthyism," Joseph McCarthy stood discredited, his name a synonym for a campaign of politically-motivated demented, paranoiac obsession, his followers rendered muted social misfits, even if not ashamed and repentant.
Americans of today -- a good half of them, at least--have demonstrated that the ugly McCarthy period has taught them nothing in lessons on the dangers of political hysteria.
What utter BULLSHIT !
_______________________
The only "attack" on the Constitutional "norms" of the government and political order of the United States going on since the presidential election campaigns of 2016 has been that of certain people, partisans of established national political parties and many elements of the nation's most powerful and influential press corps--individuals and groups-- who, being driven by their psychotic obsession with a nation-wide vendetta, have stopped at nothing in their efforts to get rid of an elected president, namely, Donald Trump, by the most expeditious means possible, distorting statutes and Constitutional principles in the process.
That effort has now been revealed to have been devoid of reasonable grounds from the very first and an investigation, with Trump as its center of interest as a potential criminal defendant, has brought exactly nothing to light which reasonably implicates Trump in any kind of criminal act consistent with the investigation's premises.
On the contrary, the investigation has brought to light evidence of the elaborate and concerted effort to subject Trump, first, as a candidate, and, second, as a duly-elected president, to what amounted to a modern-day witch-hunt.
This three-year long episode is the latest among the worst moral and political national disgraces in the 230 year history of the United States.
In the 1950s, By this time in the process of the 1950s national-disgrace which came to be known as the McCarthyism," Joseph McCarthy stood discredited, his name a synonym for a campaign of politically-motivated demented, paranoiac obsession, his followers rendered muted social misfits, even if not ashamed and repentant.
Americans of today -- a good half of them, at least--have demonstrated that the ugly McCarthy period has taught them nothing in lessons on the dangers of political hysteria.
41margd
How Trump Could Lose the Election and Remain President
A step-by-step guide to what might happen if he refuses to concede.
Daniel Block | April/May/June 2019
...There is a sequence of events, each individually plausible, that would allow Trump to remain president despite losing the election—breaking American democracy in the process.
“I think we know that Trump will certainly, no matter what the result is, be likely to declare that there was fraud and that he was the rightful victor,” said Joseph Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas who studies elections.
Let’s assume that Fishkin is right. Here’s what could keep Trump in power.
1. The election is close...
2. Trump claims fraud, and Republicans back him up...
3. Polarized courts side with the GOP...
4. Alternatively, Republicans play extreme constitutional hardball...
...Hopefully...Trump may lose decisively, rendering his claims of foul play empty. He may win. Or he may lose a tight race and cry foul, but still ultimately accept defeat. In the aftermath of the midterms, for example, Trump groused about fraud without seriously contesting the outcome.
Trump, of course, wasn’t on the ballot in 2018. Losing in 2020 would be far more personal. But even if Trump refused to concede, it doesn’t mean he’d manage to remain in office. John Roberts has worried publicly about the credibility of the Supreme Court. It seems unlikely that he would “save” Trump from a less-than-ambiguous electoral defeat. Democratic governors in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin form a formidable roadblock against local Republican power grabs. Faced with incontrovertible evidence that Trump lost—and no plausible pathway to mess with the outcome—Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and Mike Pence would probably tell Trump to pack his bags.
And if Trump still refused to go?
“I’m not sure which branch it would be, but it must be the case that somebody would be responsible for taking one elbow and somebody would be responsible for taking the other elbow,” (John Carey, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies comparative democracy and who cofounded Bright Line Watch, which monitors the health of American democracy) said. “I can imagine the feet going kind of crazy. But I like to think that it would be without too much damage to anyone.”
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2019/how-trump-could-lose-...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Can anyone imagine a defeated Trump staying quiet with the grace of a past President, though?
If the ballot box, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and/or courts/Congress haven't silenced him,
he will be inciting trolls, bots, Supremacists, conspiracy theorists, knuckle-dragging yingyangs, Fox and Limbaugh to act, I'm afraid...
A step-by-step guide to what might happen if he refuses to concede.
Daniel Block | April/May/June 2019
...There is a sequence of events, each individually plausible, that would allow Trump to remain president despite losing the election—breaking American democracy in the process.
“I think we know that Trump will certainly, no matter what the result is, be likely to declare that there was fraud and that he was the rightful victor,” said Joseph Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas who studies elections.
Let’s assume that Fishkin is right. Here’s what could keep Trump in power.
1. The election is close...
2. Trump claims fraud, and Republicans back him up...
3. Polarized courts side with the GOP...
4. Alternatively, Republicans play extreme constitutional hardball...
...Hopefully...Trump may lose decisively, rendering his claims of foul play empty. He may win. Or he may lose a tight race and cry foul, but still ultimately accept defeat. In the aftermath of the midterms, for example, Trump groused about fraud without seriously contesting the outcome.
Trump, of course, wasn’t on the ballot in 2018. Losing in 2020 would be far more personal. But even if Trump refused to concede, it doesn’t mean he’d manage to remain in office. John Roberts has worried publicly about the credibility of the Supreme Court. It seems unlikely that he would “save” Trump from a less-than-ambiguous electoral defeat. Democratic governors in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin form a formidable roadblock against local Republican power grabs. Faced with incontrovertible evidence that Trump lost—and no plausible pathway to mess with the outcome—Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and Mike Pence would probably tell Trump to pack his bags.
And if Trump still refused to go?
“I’m not sure which branch it would be, but it must be the case that somebody would be responsible for taking one elbow and somebody would be responsible for taking the other elbow,” (John Carey, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies comparative democracy and who cofounded Bright Line Watch, which monitors the health of American democracy) said. “I can imagine the feet going kind of crazy. But I like to think that it would be without too much damage to anyone.”
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2019/how-trump-could-lose-...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Can anyone imagine a defeated Trump staying quiet with the grace of a past President, though?
If the ballot box, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and/or courts/Congress haven't silenced him,
he will be inciting trolls, bots, Supremacists, conspiracy theorists, knuckle-dragging yingyangs, Fox and Limbaugh to act, I'm afraid...
43John5918
With reference to the word "international" in the thread title:
US revokes visa of International Criminal Court prosecutor (BBC)
US revokes visa of International Criminal Court prosecutor (BBC)
44John5918
UK poised to embrace authoritarianism, warns Hansard Society (Guardian)
Public attitudes emerge that ‘challenge core tenets of our democracy’
Public attitudes emerge that ‘challenge core tenets of our democracy’
45JGL53
> 41
If my math is correct we are 574 days out from the Nov. 3, 2020 elections.
So, e.g., there is no way we can predict with 100 per cent accuracy that the sun will not explode in the next 573 day period, or a giant asteroid will not strike the earth, etc.
Also there is a tiny chance that trump may knell over with a fatal heart attack tomorrow, with Mike Pence succumbing to a massive brain hemorrhage within five minutes of trump's demise, and thus Nancy Pelosi would become POTUS.
The future is just too unpredictable.
Daniel Block gives us a perfect example of "one getting ahead of one's self." This is a perfect example of a big waste of time.
If my math is correct we are 574 days out from the Nov. 3, 2020 elections.
So, e.g., there is no way we can predict with 100 per cent accuracy that the sun will not explode in the next 573 day period, or a giant asteroid will not strike the earth, etc.
Also there is a tiny chance that trump may knell over with a fatal heart attack tomorrow, with Mike Pence succumbing to a massive brain hemorrhage within five minutes of trump's demise, and thus Nancy Pelosi would become POTUS.
The future is just too unpredictable.
Daniel Block gives us a perfect example of "one getting ahead of one's self." This is a perfect example of a big waste of time.
46margd
Uh oh--Trump swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution "to the best of my Ability"??
"Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "
Better the VP's oath:
The Vice President also has an oath of office, but it is not mandated by the Constitution and is prescribed by statute. Currently, the Vice Presidential oath is the same as that for Members of Congress.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau...
___________________________________________________
White House snubs to Congress leave Republicans as well as Democrats aghast
Manu Raju, Alex Rogers and Ted Barrett | April 15, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/congress-investigations-white-house/inde...
"Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "
Better the VP's oath:
The Vice President also has an oath of office, but it is not mandated by the Constitution and is prescribed by statute. Currently, the Vice Presidential oath is the same as that for Members of Congress.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau...
___________________________________________________
White House snubs to Congress leave Republicans as well as Democrats aghast
Manu Raju, Alex Rogers and Ted Barrett | April 15, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/congress-investigations-white-house/inde...
47margd
David Frum @davidfrum | 9:51 AM - 15 Apr 2019
This is an incredible document
Among other things, the letter from Trump's lawyers is aggressively rude. "Congress has no authority to act as a junior varsity IRS."
Seriously? Article I, Section 8 vests all taxing power in Congress. It could abolish the IRS tomorrow. Of course it has authority over the IRS
The privacy of income tax returns only exists because of an act of Congress. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103 …
Congress could order them all posted on the Internet tomorrow.
_____________________________________________________
Manu Raju @mkraju | 9:30 AM - 15 Apr 2019
Trump’s attorneys make new appeal to Treasury not to give his tax returns to Hill.
(Read letter at https://twitter.com/mkraju .)
This is an incredible document
Among other things, the letter from Trump's lawyers is aggressively rude. "Congress has no authority to act as a junior varsity IRS."
Seriously? Article I, Section 8 vests all taxing power in Congress. It could abolish the IRS tomorrow. Of course it has authority over the IRS
The privacy of income tax returns only exists because of an act of Congress. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103 …
Congress could order them all posted on the Internet tomorrow.
_____________________________________________________
Manu Raju @mkraju | 9:30 AM - 15 Apr 2019
Trump’s attorneys make new appeal to Treasury not to give his tax returns to Hill.
(Read letter at https://twitter.com/mkraju .)
48margd
Administration attempting to run out the clock on providing Trump tax returns to Congress? Congress can go to court--and slo-owly work it through to Supreme Court. (I can't imagine Trump appointees would speed up their consideration of this issue?) OTOH Congress's interest will last beyond Trump's presidency: "for the purpose of examining the IRS's audit process of presidents".
Alternatively, Congress could execute its inherent contempt power against IRS Commissioner and/or his boss Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin per article in #14 at https://www.librarything.com/topic/305829 . They couldn't plead executive privilege in court?
ETA: Impeachment also an option--
Bill Kristol @BillKristol | 7:16 PM - 23 Apr 2019:
The third Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon charged him with failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the IRS blew through another deadline to turn over Trump's tax returns
Joe Perticone |
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee that the IRS would not meet their second deadline to turn over six years of President Donald Trump's tax returns.
The White House has previously said Democrats will "never" obtain Trump's tax returns.
The request from Democrats is being made for the purpose of examining the IRS's audit process of presidents...
https://www.businessinsider.com/treasury-irs-miss-second-democrat-deadline-to-tu...
ETA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cummings moves toward holding former White House official in contempt
Gigi Sukin | April 23, 2019
...(House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings:) "The White House and Mr. Kline now stand in open defiance of a duly authorized congressional subpoena with no assertion of any privilege of any kind by President Trump. Based on these actions, it appears that the President believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight. It also appears that the White House believes it may dictate to Congress — an independent and co-equal branch of government — the scope of its investigations and even the rules by which it conducts them. To date, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single witness in any of the Committee's investigations this entire year."...
https://www.axios.com/house-oversight-security-clearance-subpoena-contempt-of-co...
Alternatively, Congress could execute its inherent contempt power against IRS Commissioner and/or his boss Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin per article in #14 at https://www.librarything.com/topic/305829 . They couldn't plead executive privilege in court?
ETA: Impeachment also an option--
Bill Kristol @BillKristol | 7:16 PM - 23 Apr 2019:
The third Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon charged him with failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the IRS blew through another deadline to turn over Trump's tax returns
Joe Perticone |
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee that the IRS would not meet their second deadline to turn over six years of President Donald Trump's tax returns.
The White House has previously said Democrats will "never" obtain Trump's tax returns.
The request from Democrats is being made for the purpose of examining the IRS's audit process of presidents...
https://www.businessinsider.com/treasury-irs-miss-second-democrat-deadline-to-tu...
ETA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cummings moves toward holding former White House official in contempt
Gigi Sukin | April 23, 2019
...(House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings:) "The White House and Mr. Kline now stand in open defiance of a duly authorized congressional subpoena with no assertion of any privilege of any kind by President Trump. Based on these actions, it appears that the President believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight. It also appears that the White House believes it may dictate to Congress — an independent and co-equal branch of government — the scope of its investigations and even the rules by which it conducts them. To date, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single witness in any of the Committee's investigations this entire year."...
https://www.axios.com/house-oversight-security-clearance-subpoena-contempt-of-co...
49margd
When civilian Commander-in-Chief and our representatives fail to enforce honorable behavior--indeed, excuse criminal, rogue behavior--in the military:
Navy SEALs Were Warned Against Reporting Their Chief for War Crimes
Dave Philipps | April 23, 2019
Stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death. Picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper’s roost. Indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire.
Navy SEAL commandos from Team 7’s Alpha Platoon said they had seen their highly decorated platoon chief commit shocking acts in Iraq. And they had spoken up, repeatedly. But their frustration grew as months passed and they saw no sign of official action.
...Spurred by the Gallagher family, 40 Republican members of Congress signed a letter in March calling for the Navy to free the chief pending trial, and soon after, President Trump said on Twitter that he would be moved to “less restrictive confinement.” Chief Gallagher was released from the brig and is now restricted to the Navy Medical Center in San Diego, according to a Navy spokeswoman...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Navy SEALs Were Warned Against Reporting Their Chief for War Crimes
Dave Philipps | April 23, 2019
Stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death. Picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper’s roost. Indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire.
Navy SEAL commandos from Team 7’s Alpha Platoon said they had seen their highly decorated platoon chief commit shocking acts in Iraq. And they had spoken up, repeatedly. But their frustration grew as months passed and they saw no sign of official action.
...Spurred by the Gallagher family, 40 Republican members of Congress signed a letter in March calling for the Navy to free the chief pending trial, and soon after, President Trump said on Twitter that he would be moved to “less restrictive confinement.” Chief Gallagher was released from the brig and is now restricted to the Navy Medical Center in San Diego, according to a Navy spokeswoman...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
50margd
Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas
Charlie Savage | April 24, 2019
...“We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Mr. Trump told reporters outside the White House. “These aren’t, like, impartial people. The Democrats are trying to win 2020.”
...Mr. Trump’s flurry of moves this week to block multiple congressional investigations signaled a new phase of constitutional friction that could redefine long-murky boundaries of Congress’s power to conduct oversight of the executive branch — and the power of presidents to keep government affairs secret from lawmakers.
...As a matter of law, Mr. Trump’s declared tactic of fighting every subpoena faces steep obstacles, legal experts said. The House can vote to hold in contempt officials who refuse to show up in response to subpoenas and ask judges for orders requiring compliance with them.
Litigation over whether those subpoenas were legitimate will turn on precedents that require both branches to make good-faith efforts to accommodate each other’s needs. It will also delve into whether executive privilege is waived in instances in which the Trump administration has already disclosed some of the information that the president is trying to keep from Congress.
...By essentially forcing Democrats to keep filing lawsuits to try to enforce their subpoenas, Mr. Trump will be fighting what he can portray as “presidential harassment” and to stall the inquiries themselves.
...“If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump wrote over two posts. “Not only are there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all.”
Nothing in the Constitution or American legal history gives the Supreme Court a role in deciding whether Congress has misidentified what counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for the purpose of impeachment...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/donald-trump-subpoenas.html
Charlie Savage | April 24, 2019
...“We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Mr. Trump told reporters outside the White House. “These aren’t, like, impartial people. The Democrats are trying to win 2020.”
...Mr. Trump’s flurry of moves this week to block multiple congressional investigations signaled a new phase of constitutional friction that could redefine long-murky boundaries of Congress’s power to conduct oversight of the executive branch — and the power of presidents to keep government affairs secret from lawmakers.
...As a matter of law, Mr. Trump’s declared tactic of fighting every subpoena faces steep obstacles, legal experts said. The House can vote to hold in contempt officials who refuse to show up in response to subpoenas and ask judges for orders requiring compliance with them.
Litigation over whether those subpoenas were legitimate will turn on precedents that require both branches to make good-faith efforts to accommodate each other’s needs. It will also delve into whether executive privilege is waived in instances in which the Trump administration has already disclosed some of the information that the president is trying to keep from Congress.
...By essentially forcing Democrats to keep filing lawsuits to try to enforce their subpoenas, Mr. Trump will be fighting what he can portray as “presidential harassment” and to stall the inquiries themselves.
...“If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump wrote over two posts. “Not only are there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all.”
Nothing in the Constitution or American legal history gives the Supreme Court a role in deciding whether Congress has misidentified what counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for the purpose of impeachment...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/donald-trump-subpoenas.html
51margd
>39 margd: in cases involving claims of executive privilege courts will decide the issue only if the executive and legislative branches have tried, in good faith, but failed to reach an accommodation
White House OK's testimony — with limits — from ex-security clearance chief
KYLE CHENEY | 04/26/2019
...The offer, pitched in response to a request from (the committee's top Republican, Rep. Jim Jordan) to avert an escalating confrontation between the White House and Congress (House Oversight Committee sent subpoena to interview former security clearance boss Carl Kline)
...Cummings aides did not respond to requests for comment but it's unlikely he'll accept the terms offered by the White House. In addition to restricting Kline's testimony to general "policies and practices" of the security clearance office, Cipollone also indicated he expected to have a lawyer on his team present in the room, a demand that Democrats have not agreed to and that they've argued conflicts with the committee's past practice.
It's not clear Democrats have reviewed the letters between Cipollone and Jordan, who earlier in the day said he hoped to avert a contempt vote and urged the White House to make Kline available for a voluntary interview on April 30 or May 1. The White House agreed to the May 1 appearance, which coincides with Attorney General William Barr's first Capitol Hill testimony since he released a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Democrats have raised concerns about the security clearance process at the White House for two years. They're particularly interested in how Trump's son in law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, obtained a clearance — especially following recent reports that Trump intervened to overrule recommendations that Kushner not be granted a high-level clearance...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/26/carl-kline-security-clearances-congres...
White House OK's testimony — with limits — from ex-security clearance chief
KYLE CHENEY | 04/26/2019
...The offer, pitched in response to a request from (the committee's top Republican, Rep. Jim Jordan) to avert an escalating confrontation between the White House and Congress (House Oversight Committee sent subpoena to interview former security clearance boss Carl Kline)
...Cummings aides did not respond to requests for comment but it's unlikely he'll accept the terms offered by the White House. In addition to restricting Kline's testimony to general "policies and practices" of the security clearance office, Cipollone also indicated he expected to have a lawyer on his team present in the room, a demand that Democrats have not agreed to and that they've argued conflicts with the committee's past practice.
It's not clear Democrats have reviewed the letters between Cipollone and Jordan, who earlier in the day said he hoped to avert a contempt vote and urged the White House to make Kline available for a voluntary interview on April 30 or May 1. The White House agreed to the May 1 appearance, which coincides with Attorney General William Barr's first Capitol Hill testimony since he released a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Democrats have raised concerns about the security clearance process at the White House for two years. They're particularly interested in how Trump's son in law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, obtained a clearance — especially following recent reports that Trump intervened to overrule recommendations that Kushner not be granted a high-level clearance...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/26/carl-kline-security-clearances-congres...
52margd
NYT editorial:
Donald Trump Shows a New Level of Contempt for Congress
Many presidents have resisted congressional demands for testimony and documents. But not quite like Mr. Trump.
The Editorial Board | April 26, 2019
...While executive privilege is a common presidential tool, historians note that Mr. Trump’s usage is decidedly uncommon, if not unprecedented. Unlike his predecessors, who invoked privilege in specific cases, Mr. Trump has vowed that he will not cooperate with any congressional inquiry. He is effectively declaring lawmakers powerless over him. This, warn the experts, puts the nation in uncharted territory and threatens to erode its democratic foundations.
So where does Congress go from here? To the courts, in some instances. Already, suits and countersuits are being filed, setting up the judicial branch to define the parameters of the relationship between its legislative and executive counterparts.
Even if Democrats ultimately win many of these challenges, time is on the president’s side. Part of his team’s strategy is to bog down the process in litigation, denying the public clarity until after the 2020 election. To get the information they need, Democrats must prioritize their targets.
Other avenues of recourse being floated, some more seriously than others, include fining or even jailing officials who refuse subpoenas; withholding funding from agencies whose heads fail to cooperate; docking the pay of officials who try to prevent others from cooperating; and, if the situation becomes dire enough, impeaching the heads of obdurate agencies. House Democrats are moving to hold those who ignore subpoenas in contempt of Congress — a process that Speaker Nancy Pelosi presciently streamlined shortly after assuming control by giving the power to pursue legal action against noncompliant witnesses to a bipartisan panel of five members.
And so the process will grind on, as it must if Congress is to demand any sort of accountability from a president intent on undermining its authority.
Presidents clash with Congress, at times fiercely. The founders wanted it that way. But in declaring war on congressional oversight, Mr. Trump is not looking to maintain a balance of powers. He is looking to blow up the scales.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/trump-congress.html
(And Putin smiles.)
Donald Trump Shows a New Level of Contempt for Congress
Many presidents have resisted congressional demands for testimony and documents. But not quite like Mr. Trump.
The Editorial Board | April 26, 2019
...While executive privilege is a common presidential tool, historians note that Mr. Trump’s usage is decidedly uncommon, if not unprecedented. Unlike his predecessors, who invoked privilege in specific cases, Mr. Trump has vowed that he will not cooperate with any congressional inquiry. He is effectively declaring lawmakers powerless over him. This, warn the experts, puts the nation in uncharted territory and threatens to erode its democratic foundations.
So where does Congress go from here? To the courts, in some instances. Already, suits and countersuits are being filed, setting up the judicial branch to define the parameters of the relationship between its legislative and executive counterparts.
Even if Democrats ultimately win many of these challenges, time is on the president’s side. Part of his team’s strategy is to bog down the process in litigation, denying the public clarity until after the 2020 election. To get the information they need, Democrats must prioritize their targets.
Other avenues of recourse being floated, some more seriously than others, include fining or even jailing officials who refuse subpoenas; withholding funding from agencies whose heads fail to cooperate; docking the pay of officials who try to prevent others from cooperating; and, if the situation becomes dire enough, impeaching the heads of obdurate agencies. House Democrats are moving to hold those who ignore subpoenas in contempt of Congress — a process that Speaker Nancy Pelosi presciently streamlined shortly after assuming control by giving the power to pursue legal action against noncompliant witnesses to a bipartisan panel of five members.
And so the process will grind on, as it must if Congress is to demand any sort of accountability from a president intent on undermining its authority.
Presidents clash with Congress, at times fiercely. The founders wanted it that way. But in declaring war on congressional oversight, Mr. Trump is not looking to maintain a balance of powers. He is looking to blow up the scales.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/trump-congress.html
(And Putin smiles.)
53margd
Robert Mueller’s Take Care Clause
Quinta Jurecic | April 29, 2019
....Tucked into the back of the obstruction volume was a small, 12-page section in which the special counsel’s office tackled the legal arguments made by President Trump’s attorneys in his defense.
...Of particular interest is the special counsel’s reliance on the Take Care Clause—an evocative portion of the Constitution to focus on in a report concerning a man who has shown little inclination to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
...Mueller does adhere to well-established readings of the clause as empowering the president to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to remove officers. But he also reads it as constraining presidential action, writing that “the concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not in the office-holder’s personal interests.” The duty to “take care” can also be, as Kent, Leib and Shugerman write, a limitation on discretion.
...In arguing that investigations of the president will remain rare, Mueller notes that “(p)rosecutorial action enjoys a presumption of regularity(.)” That is, law enforcement can be trusted not to embark on tendentious obstruction investigations into official presidential acts because law enforcement officials will occupy the same moral universe as the president. There is a mutual presumption of regularity: Law enforcement accepts the president’s oath, and the president accepts that law enforcement will understand when it is obviously absurd to begin an obstruction investigation into an action taken in good faith...
No one would accuse Mueller of being naive. Yet it seems very sanguine, under the administration of a man who derides former civil servants at his own Justice Department as traitors and “scum,” to imagine that the country could return to a place of mutual understanding between the president and law enforcement. (To say nothing of the public...) As an actor within a system founded on the presumption of regularity, perhaps Mueller has little choice but to assume that regularity on the part of the president. But the extent to which he’s bound by this assumption underlines the fragility of the system as a whole.
Writing about the oath of office, (editor Benjamin) Wittes and I wondered whether Trump’s oathless administration was “the beginning of a profound institutional change to the presidency and our expectations of it.” Mueller’s answer is that it is not. The risk is that his view may be not just conservative, but overly optimistic as well.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/robert-muellers-take-care-clause
Quinta Jurecic | April 29, 2019
....Tucked into the back of the obstruction volume was a small, 12-page section in which the special counsel’s office tackled the legal arguments made by President Trump’s attorneys in his defense.
...Of particular interest is the special counsel’s reliance on the Take Care Clause—an evocative portion of the Constitution to focus on in a report concerning a man who has shown little inclination to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
...Mueller does adhere to well-established readings of the clause as empowering the president to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to remove officers. But he also reads it as constraining presidential action, writing that “the concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not in the office-holder’s personal interests.” The duty to “take care” can also be, as Kent, Leib and Shugerman write, a limitation on discretion.
...In arguing that investigations of the president will remain rare, Mueller notes that “(p)rosecutorial action enjoys a presumption of regularity(.)” That is, law enforcement can be trusted not to embark on tendentious obstruction investigations into official presidential acts because law enforcement officials will occupy the same moral universe as the president. There is a mutual presumption of regularity: Law enforcement accepts the president’s oath, and the president accepts that law enforcement will understand when it is obviously absurd to begin an obstruction investigation into an action taken in good faith...
No one would accuse Mueller of being naive. Yet it seems very sanguine, under the administration of a man who derides former civil servants at his own Justice Department as traitors and “scum,” to imagine that the country could return to a place of mutual understanding between the president and law enforcement. (To say nothing of the public...) As an actor within a system founded on the presumption of regularity, perhaps Mueller has little choice but to assume that regularity on the part of the president. But the extent to which he’s bound by this assumption underlines the fragility of the system as a whole.
Writing about the oath of office, (editor Benjamin) Wittes and I wondered whether Trump’s oathless administration was “the beginning of a profound institutional change to the presidency and our expectations of it.” Mueller’s answer is that it is not. The risk is that his view may be not just conservative, but overly optimistic as well.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/robert-muellers-take-care-clause
54margd
#52 Donald Trump Shows a New Level of Contempt for Congress, contd.: "no legitimate or lawful purpose"
Trump Sues Banks to Stop Them From Complying With House Subpoenas
Maggie Haberman, William K. Rashbaum and David Enrich | April 29, 2019
President Trump, his three eldest children and his private company filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against Deutsche Bank and Capital One, in a bid to prevent the banks from responding to congressional subpoenas.
...“This case involves congressional subpoenas that have no legitimate or lawful purpose,” the suit alleges. “The subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses and the private information of the president and his family, and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage. No grounds exist to establish any purpose other than a political one.”
The House’s Intelligence and Financial Services Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank, a longtime lender to Mr. Trump’s real estate company, and other financial institutions two weeks ago, seeking a long list of documents and other materials related to Deutsche Bank’s history of lending and providing accounts to Mr. Trump and his family. People with knowledge of the investigation said it related to possible money laundering by people in Russia and Eastern Europe...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-deutsche-bank.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Trumps sue to quash Deutsche Bank, Capital One subpoenas
Alex Johnson | April 29, 2019
...Deutsche Bank AG has continued to lend Trump money when other banks have refused. Trump wrote a $35,000 check to his former personal attorney Michael Cohen from his personal checking account with Capital One Financial Corp. Cohen submitted a copy of one of the checks to Congress ahead of his testimony.
...The suit alleges that Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, both D-Calif., have refused to provide the Trumps with copies of the subpoenas, "preventing them from even knowing, let alone negotiating, the subpoenas' scope or breadth."
It seeks a declaratory judgment that the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable and a permanent injunction to quash the subpoenas.
"We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations," Kerrie McHugh, a spokeswoman for Deutsche Bank, told NBC News on Monday night.
Capital One couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
(Read 13 p complaint at)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-sue-quash-deutsche-bank-cap...
ETA_______________________________________________________________________________________
David Frum @davidfrum | (beginning at) 7:51 PM - 29 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/davidfrum
Trump's legal argument against congressional subpoena of Deutsche Bank looks ... doomed (See excerpted legal analysis "The Scope of Congress Subpoena Power")
A simple summary of Congress's subpoena power would be: if Congress could lawfully legislate on a subject, it can subpoena on that subject.
The most relevant case also involved bank records. The bank argued it had broken no law, subpoena would violate privacy. "Whether the bank's activities violated any statute is not relevant; the inquiry was intended to inform Congress in an area where legislation may be had."
Eastland v. US Serviceman's Fund, 1975. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/421/491.html
Congress need not actually have a plan to legislate. Just a theoretical possibility of legislation will do. And since Congress can of course regulate about banking ...
Trump and his family complain that the subpoena as intrusive and politically motivated. Nerts to that. If the subpoena is premised on a valid congressional power, like overseeing banking, "The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto."
OTOH, if the Trump plan is just to buy time, even vexatious litigation can work. The bank subpoena upheld by the Supreme Court in 1975 was first issued in ... 1970.
This subpoena of Deutsche Bank may proceed faster, however. Chairs Adam Schiff & Maxine Waters have ingeniously issued their subpoena not to Trump, but to his bankers. The bank will want to comply (see statement to NBC above)... and it's Trump's lawyers who must prevent the bank against its will.
Trump Sues Banks to Stop Them From Complying With House Subpoenas
Maggie Haberman, William K. Rashbaum and David Enrich | April 29, 2019
President Trump, his three eldest children and his private company filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against Deutsche Bank and Capital One, in a bid to prevent the banks from responding to congressional subpoenas.
...“This case involves congressional subpoenas that have no legitimate or lawful purpose,” the suit alleges. “The subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses and the private information of the president and his family, and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage. No grounds exist to establish any purpose other than a political one.”
The House’s Intelligence and Financial Services Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank, a longtime lender to Mr. Trump’s real estate company, and other financial institutions two weeks ago, seeking a long list of documents and other materials related to Deutsche Bank’s history of lending and providing accounts to Mr. Trump and his family. People with knowledge of the investigation said it related to possible money laundering by people in Russia and Eastern Europe...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-deutsche-bank.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Trumps sue to quash Deutsche Bank, Capital One subpoenas
Alex Johnson | April 29, 2019
...Deutsche Bank AG has continued to lend Trump money when other banks have refused. Trump wrote a $35,000 check to his former personal attorney Michael Cohen from his personal checking account with Capital One Financial Corp. Cohen submitted a copy of one of the checks to Congress ahead of his testimony.
...The suit alleges that Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, both D-Calif., have refused to provide the Trumps with copies of the subpoenas, "preventing them from even knowing, let alone negotiating, the subpoenas' scope or breadth."
It seeks a declaratory judgment that the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable and a permanent injunction to quash the subpoenas.
"We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations," Kerrie McHugh, a spokeswoman for Deutsche Bank, told NBC News on Monday night.
Capital One couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
(Read 13 p complaint at)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-sue-quash-deutsche-bank-cap...
ETA_______________________________________________________________________________________
David Frum @davidfrum | (beginning at) 7:51 PM - 29 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/davidfrum
Trump's legal argument against congressional subpoena of Deutsche Bank looks ... doomed (See excerpted legal analysis "The Scope of Congress Subpoena Power")
A simple summary of Congress's subpoena power would be: if Congress could lawfully legislate on a subject, it can subpoena on that subject.
The most relevant case also involved bank records. The bank argued it had broken no law, subpoena would violate privacy. "Whether the bank's activities violated any statute is not relevant; the inquiry was intended to inform Congress in an area where legislation may be had."
Eastland v. US Serviceman's Fund, 1975. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/421/491.html
Congress need not actually have a plan to legislate. Just a theoretical possibility of legislation will do. And since Congress can of course regulate about banking ...
Trump and his family complain that the subpoena as intrusive and politically motivated. Nerts to that. If the subpoena is premised on a valid congressional power, like overseeing banking, "The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto."
OTOH, if the Trump plan is just to buy time, even vexatious litigation can work. The bank subpoena upheld by the Supreme Court in 1975 was first issued in ... 1970.
This subpoena of Deutsche Bank may proceed faster, however. Chairs Adam Schiff & Maxine Waters have ingeniously issued their subpoena not to Trump, but to his bankers. The bank will want to comply (see statement to NBC above)... and it's Trump's lawyers who must prevent the bank against its will.
55margd
southpaw @nycsouthpaw | 5:38 PM - 30 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw
Adam Schiff (current chair of House Intelligence Committee) is telling Chris Hayes (on MSNBC) he hasn’t been getting counterintelligence updates relating to the Russia investigation—that they’ve “gone dark”—for a year and a half.
Here’s part of that exchange, with my ominously ticking clock in the background.
Schiff says two things here—that the briefings stopped shortly after (former FBI director) Comey was fired (approx. 2y ago) and that it’s been a year and a half. A committee aide tells me the former is more accurate: it has been about two years since they received a CI briefing re the investigation.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw
Adam Schiff (current chair of House Intelligence Committee) is telling Chris Hayes (on MSNBC) he hasn’t been getting counterintelligence updates relating to the Russia investigation—that they’ve “gone dark”—for a year and a half.
Here’s part of that exchange, with my ominously ticking clock in the background.
Schiff says two things here—that the briefings stopped shortly after (former FBI director) Comey was fired (approx. 2y ago) and that it’s been a year and a half. A committee aide tells me the former is more accurate: it has been about two years since they received a CI briefing re the investigation.
56margd
Steve Vladeck (U TX Law) @steve_vladeck | 12:49 PM - 2 May 2019:
I can’t believe this needs to be said out loud, but the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee calling the Chief Justice personally and asking him to “look into” how a lower federal court handled a series of cases is so wildly inappropriate as to almost defy description.
Steven Dennis (Bloomberg) @StevenTDennis | 8:36 AM - 2 May 2019:
! Lindsey Graham says he will call Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and ask him to look into the use of the FISA court in the 2016 election.
He said he wants to preserve FISA and right now "Trump is down on FISA" because he thinks it was used to spy on his campaign.
I can’t believe this needs to be said out loud, but the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee calling the Chief Justice personally and asking him to “look into” how a lower federal court handled a series of cases is so wildly inappropriate as to almost defy description.
Steven Dennis (Bloomberg) @StevenTDennis | 8:36 AM - 2 May 2019:
! Lindsey Graham says he will call Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and ask him to look into the use of the FISA court in the 2016 election.
He said he wants to preserve FISA and right now "Trump is down on FISA" because he thinks it was used to spy on his campaign.
57margd
Where Trump’s Veto Leaves the Yemen Resolution
Scott R. Anderson | April 18, 2019
...there other legislative avenues that Congress may yet pursue if it wishes to set legal restrictions on U.S. activities in Yemen, some of which may be vulnerable to the possibility of a presidential veto.
...Congressional opponents of current U.S. policies towards Yemen are almost certain to try and insert relevant legal restrictions into the 2020 NDAA, most likely modeled on existing proposals. Whether this effort succeeds will depend on the politics around and among the House and Senate armed services committees that run the NDAA process. That said, there is some precedent for success: the conditions on in-flight refueling that appear to have led the Trump administration to cease that activity were enacted as part of the last NDAA. And the fact that a bipartisan majority in Congress has already supported S.J. Res. 7 may well tip the scales further in support of such restrictions.
Enacting clear statutory restrictions on U.S. activities in Yemen will bring the Trump administration’s views on the scope of the president’s exclusive constitutional authority back to the fore. Even if it views those restrictions as unconstitutional, the Trump administration may choose to comply without conceding that it is legally obligated to do so, preserving its legal position (and policy flexibility) without initiating an inter-branch dispute. Or it may refuse to comply, setting the stage for a potential legal challenge that would raise novel and important constitutional questions. And despite their historical reticence, the federal courts might feel compelled to take those questions up. The future of U.S. involvement in Yemen may well hang in the balance, at least until the end of the current administration.
Of course, this assumes that Trump will stay his present course. But if the congressional debate over Yemen has accomplished anything, it has made clear just how unpopular Trump’s Yemen policies are even among members of his own party. While his veto authority may allow Trump to avoid any legal restrictions, employing it comes with a political cost—one that will only grow as Congress continues to demonstrate its bipartisan opposition to his policies through additional legislative measures. At some point, even President Trump may determine that these political costs—combined, perhaps, with the imminent possibility of Congress eventually forcing his hand through binding legal restrictions—are too much to sustain.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/where-trumps-veto-leaves-yemen-resolution
Scott R. Anderson | April 18, 2019
...there other legislative avenues that Congress may yet pursue if it wishes to set legal restrictions on U.S. activities in Yemen, some of which may be vulnerable to the possibility of a presidential veto.
...Congressional opponents of current U.S. policies towards Yemen are almost certain to try and insert relevant legal restrictions into the 2020 NDAA, most likely modeled on existing proposals. Whether this effort succeeds will depend on the politics around and among the House and Senate armed services committees that run the NDAA process. That said, there is some precedent for success: the conditions on in-flight refueling that appear to have led the Trump administration to cease that activity were enacted as part of the last NDAA. And the fact that a bipartisan majority in Congress has already supported S.J. Res. 7 may well tip the scales further in support of such restrictions.
Enacting clear statutory restrictions on U.S. activities in Yemen will bring the Trump administration’s views on the scope of the president’s exclusive constitutional authority back to the fore. Even if it views those restrictions as unconstitutional, the Trump administration may choose to comply without conceding that it is legally obligated to do so, preserving its legal position (and policy flexibility) without initiating an inter-branch dispute. Or it may refuse to comply, setting the stage for a potential legal challenge that would raise novel and important constitutional questions. And despite their historical reticence, the federal courts might feel compelled to take those questions up. The future of U.S. involvement in Yemen may well hang in the balance, at least until the end of the current administration.
Of course, this assumes that Trump will stay his present course. But if the congressional debate over Yemen has accomplished anything, it has made clear just how unpopular Trump’s Yemen policies are even among members of his own party. While his veto authority may allow Trump to avoid any legal restrictions, employing it comes with a political cost—one that will only grow as Congress continues to demonstrate its bipartisan opposition to his policies through additional legislative measures. At some point, even President Trump may determine that these political costs—combined, perhaps, with the imminent possibility of Congress eventually forcing his hand through binding legal restrictions—are too much to sustain.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/where-trumps-veto-leaves-yemen-resolution
58margd
Executive v judicial branch:
BREAKING: Amicus Brief Filed in Case of Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
April 30, 2019
On April 29, 2019, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in the case of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Protect Democracy filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explaining that President Trump’s pardon of Mr. Arpaio was unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid. The brief argues that the Court needs to reach a decision about the underlying pardon before it can reach a decision about Mr. Arpaio’s request to vacate his conviction for contempt of court. ...
STATEMENT OF ADITI JUNEJA, ATTORNEY WITH PROTECT DEMOCRACY:
“The President cannot use his pardon power as a constitutional loophole. Mr. Arpaio ignored a court order to stop systematically abusing the rights of detainees assigned to his care, and the Constitution empowers the court to enforce its rulings. The Framers of the Constitution intended the presidential pardon power to provide mercy in cases where mercy serves justice, not to be used as a political tool to insulate the president and his allies from accountability. The pardon of Joe Arpaio stands in opposition to our constitutional system of laws, the co-equal powers of government, and the oath sworn by the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
STATEMENT OF LAURENCE TRIBE, CARL M. LOEB UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL:
“The Trump pardon of Sheriff Arpaio was a license to violate the civil rights of refugees and immigrants and to defy judicial orders to obey the law. The courts should strike down this blatant abuse of the pardon power, which the Framers designed as a way to temper justice with mercy — not as a way to destroy the very foundations of justice itself.”
STATEMENT OF NOAH BOOKBINDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CREW:
“CREW’s interests in promoting ethics and transparency frequently require us to bring cases in federal court. We are deeply concerned by President Trump’s use of the pardon power to undermine the ability of courts to hold in contempt those who violate court orders. The pardon of Joseph Arpaio represents an assault by the President on a co-equal branch of government and threatens the ability of the judiciary to deliver justice.”
STATEMENT OF RON FEIN, LEGAL DIRECTOR, FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE:
“President Trump can’t give a free pass to government officials to violate people’s constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t permit this type of pardon, and the judge should reject it.”
Background...
https://protectdemocracy.org/update/breaking-amicus-brief-filed-in-case-of-ex-sh...
BREAKING: Amicus Brief Filed in Case of Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
April 30, 2019
On April 29, 2019, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in the case of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Protect Democracy filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explaining that President Trump’s pardon of Mr. Arpaio was unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid. The brief argues that the Court needs to reach a decision about the underlying pardon before it can reach a decision about Mr. Arpaio’s request to vacate his conviction for contempt of court. ...
STATEMENT OF ADITI JUNEJA, ATTORNEY WITH PROTECT DEMOCRACY:
“The President cannot use his pardon power as a constitutional loophole. Mr. Arpaio ignored a court order to stop systematically abusing the rights of detainees assigned to his care, and the Constitution empowers the court to enforce its rulings. The Framers of the Constitution intended the presidential pardon power to provide mercy in cases where mercy serves justice, not to be used as a political tool to insulate the president and his allies from accountability. The pardon of Joe Arpaio stands in opposition to our constitutional system of laws, the co-equal powers of government, and the oath sworn by the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
STATEMENT OF LAURENCE TRIBE, CARL M. LOEB UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL:
“The Trump pardon of Sheriff Arpaio was a license to violate the civil rights of refugees and immigrants and to defy judicial orders to obey the law. The courts should strike down this blatant abuse of the pardon power, which the Framers designed as a way to temper justice with mercy — not as a way to destroy the very foundations of justice itself.”
STATEMENT OF NOAH BOOKBINDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CREW:
“CREW’s interests in promoting ethics and transparency frequently require us to bring cases in federal court. We are deeply concerned by President Trump’s use of the pardon power to undermine the ability of courts to hold in contempt those who violate court orders. The pardon of Joseph Arpaio represents an assault by the President on a co-equal branch of government and threatens the ability of the judiciary to deliver justice.”
STATEMENT OF RON FEIN, LEGAL DIRECTOR, FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE:
“President Trump can’t give a free pass to government officials to violate people’s constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t permit this type of pardon, and the judge should reject it.”
Background...
https://protectdemocracy.org/update/breaking-amicus-brief-filed-in-case-of-ex-sh...
592wonderY
>58 margd: Glad this is moving forward. The pardon was a travesty.
60proximity1
“The President cannot use his pardon power as a constitutional loophole. Mr. Arpaio ignored a court order to stop systematically abusing the rights of detainees assigned to his care, and the Constitution empowers the court to enforce its rulings. The Framers of the Constitution intended the presidential pardon power to provide mercy in cases where mercy serves justice, not to be used as a political tool to insulate the president and his allies from accountability. The pardon of Joe Arpaio stands in opposition to our constitutional system of laws, the co-equal powers of government, and the oath sworn by the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
--STATEMENT OF LAURENCE TRIBE
More fucking idiocy from professor Tribe. At least he's consistent.
The pardon-power doesn't trump the authority of the Constitution to compel adherence to Constitutional order?
Gee! No kidding!? Who knew?
But what does this mean in practical law? What are its practical implications?
Does the primacy of the Constitution limit the application of presidential pardon? No, it doesn't. The presidential-pardon is a feature and function of the Constitution.
So, may Sheriff Arpaio ignore a court-order enjoining him to respect the rights of detainees? No, he may not ignore that order.
What is the recourse if he defies the order?
Well, he's an elected official, isn't he? There are two avenues of recourse, one civil, one criminal.
He could be impeached and removed from office by the competent authorities (if he were still in office) but, since he is no longer in office, that remedy is moot; or he could be charged with violating these detainee's rights--charged under an applicable civil or criminal law. And so he was subjected to one of these.
Once convicted, he's subject to being pardoned. As he's no longer the sheriff of Maricopa county, he's out of office and no longer in a position to continue these abuses of rights. The remedies, then, are, again, civil or criminal charges.
Was he still subject to these? Of course he was. Could, after criminal adjudication, the president pardon Arpaio--for any reason he saw fit as a motive? Of course he could. The constitution doesn't limit the president's pardon-power to apply only in "those cases in which the president may be moved to feel merciful."
If the framers had wanted to limit the pardon-power that way, they could have and they would have done so. They didn't. The law does (and did) apply to Arpaio. He was convicted under it. But the presidential pardon-power is also applicable and no one has shown how this case is any different from any other use of it. When the president pardons a person convicted of a drug crime or of mail fraud, no objects that his pardon constitutes a "a constitutional loophole."
The best example I can think of is the Ford pardon of Nixon. Nixon, impeached, convicted and removed from office, was subsequently pardoned by Ford, his own vice-president and successor. But the pardon didn't annul or reverse Nixon's removal from office. It spared him further criminal liability --something which, at the time, I regarded as an outrage since I did not see how a pardon could or ought to operate prospectively. I thought Nixon ought to have been charged, tried in court and either convicted or acquitted. Only then should he have been eligible for a president's pardon. But surely he'd have been eligible for one then. But Ford's pardon certainly should have also been just as effective had Nixon actually been criminally convicted in a court after leaving office. Ford's pardon pre-empted that. And that is what so many people found outrageous at the time. But none of them, had Ford waited until Nixon had been convicted to issue a pardon--none of these outraged people could or would have claimed that Ford's pardon was illegal or Constitutionally improper. And surely not even the moron Laurence Tribe would have been so dense as to claim that Ford's pardon was used "as a constitutional loophole," FFS!
61margd
It’s Worse Than You Think: Putting Barr’s Senate Testimony in Perspective
David Rothkopf | May 2, 2019
...Barr’s assertions yesterday...a president can determine whether or not he ought to be investigated or that a president is incapable of committing obstruction are not just outrageous assaults on Constitutional values.
Taken in the context of this administration’s systematic rejection of the oversight role of Congress and of the law–whether it is the emoluments clause of Constitution or the obligation of the IRS to hand over tax returns to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee what we are seeing is nothing less than a coup..to eliminate the checks and balances that are a hallmark of our system and to effectively render the Congress subservient to the presidency.
Combine this with the efforts of the Senate to load the courts with judicial candidates loyal to the president...
The GOP, in order to achieve narrow political objectives which translate into the further empowerment of a tiny minority who represent America’s richest and most powerful individuals, corporations and financial institutions, are seeking changes that will forever change us.
...they are doing this in complicity with foreign enemies, themselves captive to oligarchies whose interests are commingled with those of our ever, rapaciously ascendant ruling class...
Should Trump, Barr, McConnell and Graham succeed, then those foreign enemies, notable Vladimir Putin, will succeed as well. Our democracy will lay in ruins. Our Constitution will be gutted. The idea that no man is above the law in America will be murdered before our eyes.
That is the effort we saw afoot yesterday…and that we see today as Barr refuses the House’s request that he testify…and that we are seeing daily in serial rejections of the authority of the Congress or of the laws, regulations and standards that have governed past presidents...
https://thedsrnetwork.com/its-worse-than-you-think-putting-barrs-senate-testimon...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Impeach now: It's time for Democrats to fight, or surrender. History will judge them
Chauncey DeVega | May 4, 2019
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/04/impeach-now-its-time-for-democrats-to-fight-or-...
ETA________________________________________________________-
This nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration
Max Boot | May 3, 2019
...Even before Mueller’s probe ended, federal prosecutors in New York had implicated President Trump in ordering his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to violate federal campaign finance laws. Mueller then documented at least six ironclad incidents of obstruction of justice by Trump along with numerous instances of misconduct that, while not criminal, are definitely impeachable. The New York Review of Books reported that two prosecutors working for Mueller said that if Trump weren’t president, he would have been indicted.
Now the administration is obstructing attempts to bring the president to justice for obstruction of justice...
...when Barr testified to Congress after receiving the Mueller letter but before releasing the Mueller report, he claimed not to know whether Mueller disagreed with his conclusions...
Barr’s jaw-dropping performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday dispelled any lingering confidence in the impartial administration of justice — the bedrock of our republic. He actually testified that if the president feels an investigation is unfounded, he “does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.” Given that no president has ever felt justly accused of any misconduct, this means that the president is above the law. Barr is endorsing the Nixon doctrine: “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
The administration makes clear that this is precisely its intent with its scandalous stonewalling of Congress...
While conferring legal immunity upon himself, Trump is eager to weaponize the legal system against his opponents...
It is hard to think of any president in the past 230 years, including Nixon, who has ever sabotaged the rule of law so flagrantly or so successfully to protect his own hide.
...I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in self-rule...we are left with the dismaying likelihood that the president will now feel emboldened to commit ever greater transgressions to hold onto power — and thus delay a possible post-presidential indictment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/03/this-nation-is-mercy-criminal...
David Rothkopf | May 2, 2019
...Barr’s assertions yesterday...a president can determine whether or not he ought to be investigated or that a president is incapable of committing obstruction are not just outrageous assaults on Constitutional values.
Taken in the context of this administration’s systematic rejection of the oversight role of Congress and of the law–whether it is the emoluments clause of Constitution or the obligation of the IRS to hand over tax returns to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee what we are seeing is nothing less than a coup..to eliminate the checks and balances that are a hallmark of our system and to effectively render the Congress subservient to the presidency.
Combine this with the efforts of the Senate to load the courts with judicial candidates loyal to the president...
The GOP, in order to achieve narrow political objectives which translate into the further empowerment of a tiny minority who represent America’s richest and most powerful individuals, corporations and financial institutions, are seeking changes that will forever change us.
...they are doing this in complicity with foreign enemies, themselves captive to oligarchies whose interests are commingled with those of our ever, rapaciously ascendant ruling class...
Should Trump, Barr, McConnell and Graham succeed, then those foreign enemies, notable Vladimir Putin, will succeed as well. Our democracy will lay in ruins. Our Constitution will be gutted. The idea that no man is above the law in America will be murdered before our eyes.
That is the effort we saw afoot yesterday…and that we see today as Barr refuses the House’s request that he testify…and that we are seeing daily in serial rejections of the authority of the Congress or of the laws, regulations and standards that have governed past presidents...
https://thedsrnetwork.com/its-worse-than-you-think-putting-barrs-senate-testimon...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Impeach now: It's time for Democrats to fight, or surrender. History will judge them
Chauncey DeVega | May 4, 2019
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/04/impeach-now-its-time-for-democrats-to-fight-or-...
ETA________________________________________________________-
This nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration
Max Boot | May 3, 2019
...Even before Mueller’s probe ended, federal prosecutors in New York had implicated President Trump in ordering his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to violate federal campaign finance laws. Mueller then documented at least six ironclad incidents of obstruction of justice by Trump along with numerous instances of misconduct that, while not criminal, are definitely impeachable. The New York Review of Books reported that two prosecutors working for Mueller said that if Trump weren’t president, he would have been indicted.
Now the administration is obstructing attempts to bring the president to justice for obstruction of justice...
...when Barr testified to Congress after receiving the Mueller letter but before releasing the Mueller report, he claimed not to know whether Mueller disagreed with his conclusions...
Barr’s jaw-dropping performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday dispelled any lingering confidence in the impartial administration of justice — the bedrock of our republic. He actually testified that if the president feels an investigation is unfounded, he “does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.” Given that no president has ever felt justly accused of any misconduct, this means that the president is above the law. Barr is endorsing the Nixon doctrine: “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
The administration makes clear that this is precisely its intent with its scandalous stonewalling of Congress...
While conferring legal immunity upon himself, Trump is eager to weaponize the legal system against his opponents...
It is hard to think of any president in the past 230 years, including Nixon, who has ever sabotaged the rule of law so flagrantly or so successfully to protect his own hide.
...I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in self-rule...we are left with the dismaying likelihood that the president will now feel emboldened to commit ever greater transgressions to hold onto power — and thus delay a possible post-presidential indictment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/03/this-nation-is-mercy-criminal...
62margd
Trump now slams Democrats' efforts to have Mueller testify as attempt at report 'redo'
William Cummings | May 5, 2019 | Updated 7:24 a.m. ET May 6, 2019
...President Donald Trump on Sunday assailed Democrats' effort to have special counsel Robert Mueller testify before Congress about his report on the "sweeping and systematic" interference by Russia in the 2016 election.
On Twitter, Trump slammed the move as an attempt at a "redo" of the investigation, which did not find any evidence of a criminal conspiracy or any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
He wondered why, after "spending more than $35,000,000 over a two year period, interviewing 500 people, using 18 Trump Hating Angry Democrats & 49 FBI Agents - all culminating in a more than 400 page Report showing NO COLLUSION," the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller to testify."
"There was no crime, except on the other side (incredibly not covered in the Report), and NO OBSTRUCTION. Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!" ...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/05/robert-mueller-democrats...
William Cummings | May 5, 2019 | Updated 7:24 a.m. ET May 6, 2019
...President Donald Trump on Sunday assailed Democrats' effort to have special counsel Robert Mueller testify before Congress about his report on the "sweeping and systematic" interference by Russia in the 2016 election.
On Twitter, Trump slammed the move as an attempt at a "redo" of the investigation, which did not find any evidence of a criminal conspiracy or any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
He wondered why, after "spending more than $35,000,000 over a two year period, interviewing 500 people, using 18 Trump Hating Angry Democrats & 49 FBI Agents - all culminating in a more than 400 page Report showing NO COLLUSION," the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller to testify."
"There was no crime, except on the other side (incredibly not covered in the Report), and NO OBSTRUCTION. Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!" ...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/05/robert-mueller-democrats...
63margd
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:56 AM - 7 May 2019 :
No president has wielded the pardon power more horribly —
not to temper justice with mercy but to reward ghouls like Arpaio and Behenna and
to tamper with witnesses like Manafort and Stone....
________________________________________________________________________________
Trump pardons ex-soldier convicted of killing Iraqi prisoner
Brandon Conradis and Zack Budryk | 05/06/19
President Trump on Monday signed an executive grant of clemency, a full pardon, to a former Army first lieutenant convicted of murdering an Iraqi prisoner.
...Michael Behenna, who was sentenced in 2009 to 15 years for shooting and killing Ali Mansur Mohamed. The move comes after repeated requests from Oklahoma's attorney general for Trump to pardon Behenna.
...Prosecutors argued Behenna shot and killed Mansur, an alleged al Qaeda operative, in the desert in 2008 in retaliation for an improvised explosive device (IED) attack. Mansur had previously been ordered released because of a lack of evidence of his connection to the terrorist group, and Behenna reportedly killed him while returning him to his hometown after attempting to question him about the IED attack.
Behenna was paroled in 2014 and was to remain on parole until 2024 prior to the pardon...
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/442401-trump-pardons-ex-soldier-convicted-of-...
No president has wielded the pardon power more horribly —
not to temper justice with mercy but to reward ghouls like Arpaio and Behenna and
to tamper with witnesses like Manafort and Stone....
________________________________________________________________________________
Trump pardons ex-soldier convicted of killing Iraqi prisoner
Brandon Conradis and Zack Budryk | 05/06/19
President Trump on Monday signed an executive grant of clemency, a full pardon, to a former Army first lieutenant convicted of murdering an Iraqi prisoner.
...Michael Behenna, who was sentenced in 2009 to 15 years for shooting and killing Ali Mansur Mohamed. The move comes after repeated requests from Oklahoma's attorney general for Trump to pardon Behenna.
...Prosecutors argued Behenna shot and killed Mansur, an alleged al Qaeda operative, in the desert in 2008 in retaliation for an improvised explosive device (IED) attack. Mansur had previously been ordered released because of a lack of evidence of his connection to the terrorist group, and Behenna reportedly killed him while returning him to his hometown after attempting to question him about the IED attack.
Behenna was paroled in 2014 and was to remain on parole until 2024 prior to the pardon...
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/442401-trump-pardons-ex-soldier-convicted-of-...
64margd
The Executive Branch Escalates Its Clash With Congress
Margaret Taylor | May 9, 2019, 6:19 PM
...The last few days have seen a whiplash-worthy series of actions between Congress and the executive branch, with battles over subpoenas, threats of contempt and even cries of constitutional crisis. These events may seem bewildering to a casual observer of this dysfunctional relationship. So it’s worth slowing down, rewinding the tape, and taking a look at how the two branches got to this point.
...Next Steps
Technically, the next step for the judiciary committee’s contempt resolution is a full vote in the House on the resolution and to authorize legal proceedings. Before that happens, it is possible that a more meaningful negotiation between the executive and legislative branches will occur. Barr may not relish the idea of being held in contempt of Congress, and there are likely a host of the underlying materials from the Mueller investigation that are not protected by executive privilege and could be turned over to the committee. For the committee’s part, Nadler likely recognizes that proceeding quickly to a civil contempt proceeding in district court may not produce the sought-after materials within any meaningful timeframe. How this particular fight between the branches proceeds could be a harbinger of how the rest of the disputes on other topics play out. As Nadler said in his statement the day of the markup of the contempt resolution: “Our fight is not just about the Mueller Report—although we must have access to the Mueller report. Our fight is about defending the rights of Congress, as an independent branch, to hold the President accountable.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/executive-branch-escalates-its-clash-congress
Margaret Taylor | May 9, 2019, 6:19 PM
...The last few days have seen a whiplash-worthy series of actions between Congress and the executive branch, with battles over subpoenas, threats of contempt and even cries of constitutional crisis. These events may seem bewildering to a casual observer of this dysfunctional relationship. So it’s worth slowing down, rewinding the tape, and taking a look at how the two branches got to this point.
...Next Steps
Technically, the next step for the judiciary committee’s contempt resolution is a full vote in the House on the resolution and to authorize legal proceedings. Before that happens, it is possible that a more meaningful negotiation between the executive and legislative branches will occur. Barr may not relish the idea of being held in contempt of Congress, and there are likely a host of the underlying materials from the Mueller investigation that are not protected by executive privilege and could be turned over to the committee. For the committee’s part, Nadler likely recognizes that proceeding quickly to a civil contempt proceeding in district court may not produce the sought-after materials within any meaningful timeframe. How this particular fight between the branches proceeds could be a harbinger of how the rest of the disputes on other topics play out. As Nadler said in his statement the day of the markup of the contempt resolution: “Our fight is not just about the Mueller Report—although we must have access to the Mueller report. Our fight is about defending the rights of Congress, as an independent branch, to hold the President accountable.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/executive-branch-escalates-its-clash-congress
65margd
Congress Considers $25,000/Day Fine for Trump Officials Held in Contempt
Todd Neikirk | May 10, 2019
...House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), however, feels it might be more effective to charge these witnesses for every day they ignore their subpoenas...:
Much as I like the visual of throwing people in jail, I think it’s far more practical to consider levying individual fines on the person — not the office — until they comply. You could fine someone $25,000 a day until they comply. You can do that. We’re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid ground.”...
https://hillreporter.com/watch-gop-congressman-condemns-trumps-tariffs-35071
Todd Neikirk | May 10, 2019
...House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), however, feels it might be more effective to charge these witnesses for every day they ignore their subpoenas...:
Much as I like the visual of throwing people in jail, I think it’s far more practical to consider levying individual fines on the person — not the office — until they comply. You could fine someone $25,000 a day until they comply. You can do that. We’re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid ground.”...
https://hillreporter.com/watch-gop-congressman-condemns-trumps-tariffs-35071
66theoria
I hope the Democratic candidates will address the new Jane Crow laws that have popped up in MAGAstates (Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama).
67LolaWalser
>66 theoria:
Seriously, thank you--thank you for thinking women are people. In here it's a minority opinion.
Seriously, thank you--thank you for thinking women are people. In here it's a minority opinion.
68JGL53
> 67
Maybe you should go live in the Middle East, or Africa, or Asia - I hear it is much better for women in those places than in Europe or the U.S.
E.g., Saudi Arabia - I hear you're even allowed to drive there now.
Maybe you should go live in the Middle East, or Africa, or Asia - I hear it is much better for women in those places than in Europe or the U.S.
E.g., Saudi Arabia - I hear you're even allowed to drive there now.
70RickHarsch
>69 John5918: My main objection to the post is that it is tired. I count on JGL53 at least for refreshment, but in this case he's merely repeating the arguments of simpletons in order to make a joke.
71JGL53
> 69, 70
Well, boys, it is just that LolaWalser is offensive to me and she makes me tired.
Her extremist radical almost other-worldly-level misanthropic anti-male hatred is disgusting to me. Her posing as something she defines as a feminist would be a joke if it weren't so absurd and detrimental to actual feminism. I find her ridiculous rantings as off-putting as those of dedicated Marxists, Randroids, Scientologists, white supremacists and similar robotic ideologues.
IOW, I do not like her at all. I dislike her intensely, just as I intensely dislike all those with such an inhuman mindset. She is not part of any solution. She is part of the problem. She continues to make this plain every time she posts here. I feel very, very sorry for any person who has to experience her in person.
Do you two clearly understand me now? Good. I am made uncomfortable when other people fail to understand me. It hurts my feelings. It really does.
Well, boys, it is just that LolaWalser is offensive to me and she makes me tired.
Her extremist radical almost other-worldly-level misanthropic anti-male hatred is disgusting to me. Her posing as something she defines as a feminist would be a joke if it weren't so absurd and detrimental to actual feminism. I find her ridiculous rantings as off-putting as those of dedicated Marxists, Randroids, Scientologists, white supremacists and similar robotic ideologues.
IOW, I do not like her at all. I dislike her intensely, just as I intensely dislike all those with such an inhuman mindset. She is not part of any solution. She is part of the problem. She continues to make this plain every time she posts here. I feel very, very sorry for any person who has to experience her in person.
Do you two clearly understand me now? Good. I am made uncomfortable when other people fail to understand me. It hurts my feelings. It really does.
72RickHarsch
Well, why didn't you just say so?
73lriley
Well it's just true that women are discriminated against economically all across the board in the United States. White women make .77 for ever $1.00 their white male counterparts in the same occupations make and it's much worse for black women--.61 and Latina or Hispanic women--.53.
https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
or if you don't like that one there is:
https://www.businessinsider.com/gender-wage-pay-gap-charts-2017-3
It's only a secret to those who aren't paying any attention.
Basically this pretty much lays at the feet of this shitty capitalistic system we have here that systematically victimizes categories of people--playing groupings off against each other but generally speaking the idea is a work in continual process to undercut everyone but that smallest percentile of the richest people.
https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
or if you don't like that one there is:
https://www.businessinsider.com/gender-wage-pay-gap-charts-2017-3
It's only a secret to those who aren't paying any attention.
Basically this pretty much lays at the feet of this shitty capitalistic system we have here that systematically victimizes categories of people--playing groupings off against each other but generally speaking the idea is a work in continual process to undercut everyone but that smallest percentile of the richest people.
74JGL53
> 73
Well, Iriley, the 77 cents to a dollar female/male ratio is a 2014 misleading factoid. The latest misleading factoid is the 2016 figure - 79 cents to every dollar.
Read this article - carefully - to understand why we are dealing with misleading factoids and not so much with simple pristine facts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/14/here-are-the-fact...
(The upshot of the above article is that the wage gap is probably closer to eight per cent rather than in the twenties. That is much closer to some sort of margin of error.)
Just as a side note - in my chosen profession, pharmacy, the figure is something like 96 cents to every dollar female/male ratio, and I am told the difference is due to seniority and part time vs. full time pay rates.
So - at least female pharmacists are not getting screwed - that's laudable progress. Hmmm - I wonder if anyone knows the figures on other specific professionals - e.g., physicians, nurses, lawyers, chiropractors, CPAs, those with MSW degrees, etc.?
Well, Iriley, the 77 cents to a dollar female/male ratio is a 2014 misleading factoid. The latest misleading factoid is the 2016 figure - 79 cents to every dollar.
Read this article - carefully - to understand why we are dealing with misleading factoids and not so much with simple pristine facts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/14/here-are-the-fact...
(The upshot of the above article is that the wage gap is probably closer to eight per cent rather than in the twenties. That is much closer to some sort of margin of error.)
Just as a side note - in my chosen profession, pharmacy, the figure is something like 96 cents to every dollar female/male ratio, and I am told the difference is due to seniority and part time vs. full time pay rates.
So - at least female pharmacists are not getting screwed - that's laudable progress. Hmmm - I wonder if anyone knows the figures on other specific professionals - e.g., physicians, nurses, lawyers, chiropractors, CPAs, those with MSW degrees, etc.?
75krazy4katz
>74 JGL53: Like or dislike the person, but I don’t think equal pay was the issue being addressed by >67 LolaWalser:. The rights of women to have control over their own bodies is becoming more restricted. Best example is abortion “rights” in Georgia. Hopefully sanity will prevail and the law will be struck down by the courts. Imagine a woman being arrested and tried at 6 weeks after conception to determine whether she had an abortion or a miscarriage.
76lriley
#75--the problem with some states particularly in the American South are they are run by religious/fundamentalist gun toting conservative fanatics. The climate might be nicer in some places but I could never live in the South. Too many stupid people AFAIC. To me they are drag on any kind of progress with their old-fashioned traditionalist points of view. It seems to me the bullk of them are happy with low wages and going to war. They hate unions and are patriarchal as all get out. I don't know what you can do with people who like to wallow in their ignorance. Generally I tried to avoid/ignore them if at all possible.
77alco261
>74 JGL53: As you said, I can't speak for a profession in general but I do know that a situation of 77 cents vs. a dollar is actually better than the situation where my wife works - there it is more like 66 cents to the dollar when comparing female to male physician wages. In my profession where I work the situation is more like 80 cents to a dollar.
78lriley
FWIW the Equal Rights Amendment movement has re-ignited. I know there is a big push going on in Virginia at the moment to get it ratified in their Senate or Assembly (it's passed one of the houses and it's expected to pass the other) and I believe if that can be accomplished they will have the required number of states to make it into constitutional law which for sure is going to be challenged by conservatives in the courts (because there were arbitrary time limits placed on it way back when)--but still they will have the required number of states so I think the weight of the argument would be on the ERA movement's side though another problem is the way the courts have been packed. If it does become constitutional law though I believe it will kill these new state laws.
79RickHarsch
In my profession, all genders are stuck with himherrhoids that won't go away.
80JGL53
In any case life here on earth for all humans certainly has its vicissitudes, from moment to moment and from decade to decade - no denying that. Even very rich people wind up dying in pain and humiliation many times. And even most straight white men can't get a damn break, mainly because of the actions of other straight white men, lol.
(And I won't even mention non-humans animals - those bastards were fucked from the start.)
It should be hard to stereotype people, I mean if one were utterly rational, but stereotyping just seems to be what we humans do - that and, nowadays, gamboling through fields of identity politics with big upside-down frowns on our faces.
Me - I blame it all on god. The guy is a total fuck-up and monster, obviously. No wonder people assume he is also white, lol. E.g., the first mistake he made was creating free will in humans. Didn't he have a clue how they (ok, we) were going to mainly misuse and abuse that? What, omniscience has a blind spot, lol?
Second mistake god made - well, I would say earthquakes, with volcanoes a close third and maybe hurricanes fourth. In those situations at least everyone becomes equal - finally. Being super smart and super rich doesn't even help as the hand of god descends on us all. We humans interpret it all in terms of good luck and bad luck, but when the game is rigged the idea of luck is just a sick joke. And the yolk is on us humans, lol.
I think that one fine day, when all human bodies have died off and all human immortal spirits have zoomed off into the mysterious transcendent dimension, infinitely above the mundane welkin, we'll all look back at our various sojourns on earth and just laugh and laugh at our previous anxiety and/or depression about all that temporal stuff; except, of course, for those that must needs reverse course and descend to Hell - e.g., republicans. lol.
(And I won't even mention non-humans animals - those bastards were fucked from the start.)
It should be hard to stereotype people, I mean if one were utterly rational, but stereotyping just seems to be what we humans do - that and, nowadays, gamboling through fields of identity politics with big upside-down frowns on our faces.
Me - I blame it all on god. The guy is a total fuck-up and monster, obviously. No wonder people assume he is also white, lol. E.g., the first mistake he made was creating free will in humans. Didn't he have a clue how they (ok, we) were going to mainly misuse and abuse that? What, omniscience has a blind spot, lol?
Second mistake god made - well, I would say earthquakes, with volcanoes a close third and maybe hurricanes fourth. In those situations at least everyone becomes equal - finally. Being super smart and super rich doesn't even help as the hand of god descends on us all. We humans interpret it all in terms of good luck and bad luck, but when the game is rigged the idea of luck is just a sick joke. And the yolk is on us humans, lol.
I think that one fine day, when all human bodies have died off and all human immortal spirits have zoomed off into the mysterious transcendent dimension, infinitely above the mundane welkin, we'll all look back at our various sojourns on earth and just laugh and laugh at our previous anxiety and/or depression about all that temporal stuff; except, of course, for those that must needs reverse course and descend to Hell - e.g., republicans. lol.
81JGL53
> 75
Aborted fetuses (i.e., the released eternal spirits) go directly to heaven (Limbo having been recently canceled).
Thus, you have the winning argument. It will always be win/win for abortion rights.
I myself have been on board ever since I saw the light back when I was nine years old - just about the time I figured out that southern baptists were like Albert Einstein - only exactly opposite. lol.
So, right now Hollywood types are cranking up a boycott of the state of insanity, uh, I mean the state of Georgia, lol.
I think that is a fine idea. I for one plan on avoiding the place like the plague, in solidarity with those left coast rich white fucks.
Uh, lol.
Aborted fetuses (i.e., the released eternal spirits) go directly to heaven (Limbo having been recently canceled).
Thus, you have the winning argument. It will always be win/win for abortion rights.
I myself have been on board ever since I saw the light back when I was nine years old - just about the time I figured out that southern baptists were like Albert Einstein - only exactly opposite. lol.
So, right now Hollywood types are cranking up a boycott of the state of insanity, uh, I mean the state of Georgia, lol.
I think that is a fine idea. I for one plan on avoiding the place like the plague, in solidarity with those left coast rich white fucks.
Uh, lol.
82RickHarsch
>80 JGL53:
"Me - I blame it all on god. The guy is a total fuck-up and monster, obviously. No wonder people assume he is also white, lol. E.g., the first mistake he made was creating free will in humans. Didn't he have a clue how they (ok, we) were going to mainly misuse and abuse that? What, omniscience has a blind spot, lol?"
See, that's why arguments about what atheism is or isnt and any other 'religious' argument bores the shit out of me, for I have passed through a long long period of atheism, philosophical, drunken vomitical, ennuinee, every kind of atheism I could invent, and have come to think that a malevolent deity makes as much sense. I'd say right now I'm 50/50 but it doesn't work like that--it goes in streaks, unpredictably. Like when I witness, for instance, the shenanigans of trumpers I sometimes think evolution could not have taken so long to get merely to THAT. Then I remember it all takes a long time and the doom is inevitable, so maybe it IS evolution, and I worship the ant, the roach, and bemoan the fate of the bonobo.
"Me - I blame it all on god. The guy is a total fuck-up and monster, obviously. No wonder people assume he is also white, lol. E.g., the first mistake he made was creating free will in humans. Didn't he have a clue how they (ok, we) were going to mainly misuse and abuse that? What, omniscience has a blind spot, lol?"
See, that's why arguments about what atheism is or isnt and any other 'religious' argument bores the shit out of me, for I have passed through a long long period of atheism, philosophical, drunken vomitical, ennuinee, every kind of atheism I could invent, and have come to think that a malevolent deity makes as much sense. I'd say right now I'm 50/50 but it doesn't work like that--it goes in streaks, unpredictably. Like when I witness, for instance, the shenanigans of trumpers I sometimes think evolution could not have taken so long to get merely to THAT. Then I remember it all takes a long time and the doom is inevitable, so maybe it IS evolution, and I worship the ant, the roach, and bemoan the fate of the bonobo.
83Molly3028
Sadly, Trumpism is the drug-of-choice for at least 35 to 40% of Americans.
and
People in the southern states are still fighting the Civil War.
and
People in the flyover states prefer to believe they are still living in a 20th century world.
and
People in the southern states are still fighting the Civil War.
and
People in the flyover states prefer to believe they are still living in a 20th century world.
84JGL53
> 83
We the living must not lose our nerve. Believe it and never doubt it, all sewage drains eventually run down to the sea and the sunlight will eventually kill all the evil bacteria.
One must have the faith of a mustard seed or whatever that truth will win out eventually and the shit will instead rain down one fine day on all those evil reactionary motherfuckers of which you speak, perhaps sooner than many think, and then we non-kool-aid drinkers will bask in the glory of a shiny new world of schadenfreude.
Just think back to the night of election day 2008. Remember the effulgence that permeated your entire body and essence that glorious day? I can plainly see in my mind's eye the recrudescence of that celestrialesque light at the end of our present seweresque tunnel.
Namaste and don't forget to vote.
We the living must not lose our nerve. Believe it and never doubt it, all sewage drains eventually run down to the sea and the sunlight will eventually kill all the evil bacteria.
One must have the faith of a mustard seed or whatever that truth will win out eventually and the shit will instead rain down one fine day on all those evil reactionary motherfuckers of which you speak, perhaps sooner than many think, and then we non-kool-aid drinkers will bask in the glory of a shiny new world of schadenfreude.
Just think back to the night of election day 2008. Remember the effulgence that permeated your entire body and essence that glorious day? I can plainly see in my mind's eye the recrudescence of that celestrialesque light at the end of our present seweresque tunnel.
Namaste and don't forget to vote.
85proximity1
>83 Molly3028:
Before you're finished with the 21st-century world, you're going to come to envy certain very important but lost aspects of the 20th-century world.
86John5918
>85 proximity1:
Agreed. The closing couple of decades of the 20th century were a very hopeful time, with the end of the Cold War, a number of longstanding conflicts coming to an end, a renewed respect for international multilateral institutions (including the UN and EU) and a seeming increase in global willingness to resolve differences through dialogue rather than violence. Conversely, the first twenty years of the 21st century appear to have seen a rapid decline.
Agreed. The closing couple of decades of the 20th century were a very hopeful time, with the end of the Cold War, a number of longstanding conflicts coming to an end, a renewed respect for international multilateral institutions (including the UN and EU) and a seeming increase in global willingness to resolve differences through dialogue rather than violence. Conversely, the first twenty years of the 21st century appear to have seen a rapid decline.
87margd
Elaina Plott (WH correspondent, The Atlantic) @elainaplott | 5:02 AM - 15 May 2019
Trump also tweeted that DOJ and FBI would “review” the Jussie Smollett case. I asked a DOJ spox whether this actually happened, and she declined to comment. The FBI didn’t respond to me. When I asked why Trump had tweeted this, the White House wouldn’t engage.
__________________________________________________________________
Chicago police accused the gay actor and singer of staging a fake hate crime against himself earlier this year.
Trump also tweeted that DOJ and FBI would “review” the Jussie Smollett case. I asked a DOJ spox whether this actually happened, and she declined to comment. The FBI didn’t respond to me. When I asked why Trump had tweeted this, the White House wouldn’t engage.
__________________________________________________________________
Chicago police accused the gay actor and singer of staging a fake hate crime against himself earlier this year.
88margd
Trump Deems Himself A King Who Is Above Congress And The Courts
Jason Easley | May 15th, 2019
...Rep. (Jamie ) Raskin said on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, “The theory is that the president is essentially a constitutional monarch and he stands above Congress and he stands above the courts. That’s a complete inversion of the constitutional design. Under our constitution, Congress is in Article One. We are the lawmaking power and receive the sovereign power from the people. We can impeach the president. We can impeach executive officers. He cannot impeach us. He has it backwards. Congress is in the process of reasserting our constitutional preeminence. We are not just a coequal branch We are the first among equals, and we have a president who thinks he is a king and acting in a lawless manner.”
The White House sent a 12-page letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explaining why Congress doesn’t have the power to investigate Trump: (see website)
Trump’s theory of executive power is intentionally and conveniently designed to place him above all investigations...a shield and delay tactic to stall the many congressional investigations of this president...his theory of executive power will face a sudden and quick downfall in court.
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/15/trump-deems-himself-a-king-who-is-above-...
Jason Easley | May 15th, 2019
...Rep. (Jamie ) Raskin said on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, “The theory is that the president is essentially a constitutional monarch and he stands above Congress and he stands above the courts. That’s a complete inversion of the constitutional design. Under our constitution, Congress is in Article One. We are the lawmaking power and receive the sovereign power from the people. We can impeach the president. We can impeach executive officers. He cannot impeach us. He has it backwards. Congress is in the process of reasserting our constitutional preeminence. We are not just a coequal branch We are the first among equals, and we have a president who thinks he is a king and acting in a lawless manner.”
The White House sent a 12-page letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explaining why Congress doesn’t have the power to investigate Trump: (see website)
Trump’s theory of executive power is intentionally and conveniently designed to place him above all investigations...a shield and delay tactic to stall the many congressional investigations of this president...his theory of executive power will face a sudden and quick downfall in court.
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/15/trump-deems-himself-a-king-who-is-above-...
89margd
How Trump Will Weaken the Presidency
Keith E. Whittington | May 16, 2019
...By persistently testing the limits of the president’s constitutional and legal powers, Trump forces his defenders to offer increasingly strained legal arguments to justify his actions. ...
And by making blanket assertions of executive privilege over testimony and documents that cannot be easily tied to the traditional grounds for protecting the internal confidences of the executive branch, he challenges Congress and the courts to strip away the veils of privilege. ...
...The American separation of powers works in no small part because government officials have built up norms and practices that ease tensions and provide the means for navigating impasses. The current polarized political climate has encouraged officials to strip away these informal mechanisms of comity and cooperation, leaving the gears of government to grind away and lock up.
The president will no doubt win some of these legal battles, but he will lose some as well. In doing so, he will leave his successors hemmed in by more constricting legal rules and adverse judicial precedents, and will encourage legislators and judges to be more mistrustful of presidential claims and less willing to invest the presidency with authority and discretion. Future presidents who will need the flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies and to protect valuable secrets will find themselves less well situated to do so because this president has squandered political and legal capital. In the past, presidents have benefited from the fact that they have not generally had to put the limits of their legal authority to the test. His bold assertions of executive prerogative might make President Trump temporarily feel powerful, but that sense of potency will likely prove fleeting.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-trump-will-weaken-presidency
Keith E. Whittington | May 16, 2019
...By persistently testing the limits of the president’s constitutional and legal powers, Trump forces his defenders to offer increasingly strained legal arguments to justify his actions. ...
And by making blanket assertions of executive privilege over testimony and documents that cannot be easily tied to the traditional grounds for protecting the internal confidences of the executive branch, he challenges Congress and the courts to strip away the veils of privilege. ...
...The American separation of powers works in no small part because government officials have built up norms and practices that ease tensions and provide the means for navigating impasses. The current polarized political climate has encouraged officials to strip away these informal mechanisms of comity and cooperation, leaving the gears of government to grind away and lock up.
The president will no doubt win some of these legal battles, but he will lose some as well. In doing so, he will leave his successors hemmed in by more constricting legal rules and adverse judicial precedents, and will encourage legislators and judges to be more mistrustful of presidential claims and less willing to invest the presidency with authority and discretion. Future presidents who will need the flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies and to protect valuable secrets will find themselves less well situated to do so because this president has squandered political and legal capital. In the past, presidents have benefited from the fact that they have not generally had to put the limits of their legal authority to the test. His bold assertions of executive prerogative might make President Trump temporarily feel powerful, but that sense of potency will likely prove fleeting.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-trump-will-weaken-presidency
90margd
Patagonia’s CEO is donating company’s entire $10M Trump tax cut to fight climate change.
Leo Shvedsky | November 28, 2018
....In letter posted to LinkedIn, Patagonia’s CEO announced her company is donating all $10 million (from Trump tax cut) to non-profit groups who work on issues related to climate change and the environment.
“Based on last year’s irresponsible tax cut, Patagonia will owe less in taxes this year—$10 million less, in fact,” CEO Rose Marcario writes. “Instead of putting the money back into our business, we’re responding by putting $10 million back into the planet. Our home planet needs it more than we do.” ...
https://www.upworthy.com/patagonia-s-ceo-is-donating-company-s-entire-10-m-trump...
Leo Shvedsky | November 28, 2018
....In letter posted to LinkedIn, Patagonia’s CEO announced her company is donating all $10 million (from Trump tax cut) to non-profit groups who work on issues related to climate change and the environment.
“Based on last year’s irresponsible tax cut, Patagonia will owe less in taxes this year—$10 million less, in fact,” CEO Rose Marcario writes. “Instead of putting the money back into our business, we’re responding by putting $10 million back into the planet. Our home planet needs it more than we do.” ...
https://www.upworthy.com/patagonia-s-ceo-is-donating-company-s-entire-10-m-trump...
91margd
No stay pending appeal!
Judge orders Trump accounting firm to hand over records to Congress
Katelyn Polantz | May 20, 2019
Washington (CNN)A federal district judge has told the accounting firm Mazars it will need to turn over Donald Trump's accounting records from before he was President to the Democratic-controlled House Oversight Committee.
In a 41-page opinion, Judge Amit Mehta of the DC District Court dealt a significant blow to the White House as he rejected Trump's attempt to block the committee's subpoena, asserting that Congress is well within its authority to investigate the President...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html
___________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. Plaintiffs, v. COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-01136 (APM)
41 pages
...VI.CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019034/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.p...
ETA________________________________________________________
Trump's House investigations tantrum proves Pelosi and Democrats are gaining momentum
Growing Democratic pressure — and a new court ruling — suggest Trump’s plan to run out the clock on oversight efforts may have some holes in it.
Kurt Bardella | May 22, 2019
...“A congressional investigation to carry out an expressly delegated Article I function, in addition to any legislation that might be had relating to that function, is plainly valid. So, too, is an investigation to determine whether the President has any conflicts of interest. As already discussed, it lies within Congress’s province to legislate regarding the ethics of government officials,” Mehta wrote in his decision...
...The crux of Trump’s efforts to block cooperation with congressional subpoenas hinges on the argument that “there is no possible legislation at the end of this tunnel.” The president believes that absent a specific legislative purpose, Congress cannot investigate matters like his financial records.
But Mehta addressed this argument directly: “Obtaining records to shed light on whether the President has undisclosed conflicts of interests is therefore entirely consistent with potential legislation in an area where Congress already has acted and made policy judgments.”
This feels like one of the more important lines from Mehta, especially regarding the question of legislative relevance: “The critical inquiry then is not legislative certainty, but legislative potential.” Simply put, congressional investigations do not have to be fixed to a specific policy proposal or action.
But neither does Congress need to formally open an impeachment inquiry to investigate the president’s potentially illegal behavior...“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” Mehta wrote. “Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”
...The president is hoping the path through the judicial branch will be time-consuming and opaque. But in this case, as Klain noted, it was expeditious and definitive. Trump is also hoping a judge will be willing to undo judicial precedent that has protected our system of checks and balances since the formation of our nation. But clearly, there are judges who disagree.
Every time the president loses a case in a court of law, his alleged lawlessness becomes clearer. This could hurt him politically, but just as important it affect his brand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-house-investigations-tantrum-prove...
Judge orders Trump accounting firm to hand over records to Congress
Katelyn Polantz | May 20, 2019
Washington (CNN)A federal district judge has told the accounting firm Mazars it will need to turn over Donald Trump's accounting records from before he was President to the Democratic-controlled House Oversight Committee.
In a 41-page opinion, Judge Amit Mehta of the DC District Court dealt a significant blow to the White House as he rejected Trump's attempt to block the committee's subpoena, asserting that Congress is well within its authority to investigate the President...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html
___________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. Plaintiffs, v. COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-01136 (APM)
41 pages
...VI.CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019034/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.p...
ETA________________________________________________________
Trump's House investigations tantrum proves Pelosi and Democrats are gaining momentum
Growing Democratic pressure — and a new court ruling — suggest Trump’s plan to run out the clock on oversight efforts may have some holes in it.
Kurt Bardella | May 22, 2019
...“A congressional investigation to carry out an expressly delegated Article I function, in addition to any legislation that might be had relating to that function, is plainly valid. So, too, is an investigation to determine whether the President has any conflicts of interest. As already discussed, it lies within Congress’s province to legislate regarding the ethics of government officials,” Mehta wrote in his decision...
...The crux of Trump’s efforts to block cooperation with congressional subpoenas hinges on the argument that “there is no possible legislation at the end of this tunnel.” The president believes that absent a specific legislative purpose, Congress cannot investigate matters like his financial records.
But Mehta addressed this argument directly: “Obtaining records to shed light on whether the President has undisclosed conflicts of interests is therefore entirely consistent with potential legislation in an area where Congress already has acted and made policy judgments.”
This feels like one of the more important lines from Mehta, especially regarding the question of legislative relevance: “The critical inquiry then is not legislative certainty, but legislative potential.” Simply put, congressional investigations do not have to be fixed to a specific policy proposal or action.
But neither does Congress need to formally open an impeachment inquiry to investigate the president’s potentially illegal behavior...“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” Mehta wrote. “Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”
...The president is hoping the path through the judicial branch will be time-consuming and opaque. But in this case, as Klain noted, it was expeditious and definitive. Trump is also hoping a judge will be willing to undo judicial precedent that has protected our system of checks and balances since the formation of our nation. But clearly, there are judges who disagree.
Every time the president loses a case in a court of law, his alleged lawlessness becomes clearer. This could hurt him politically, but just as important it affect his brand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-house-investigations-tantrum-prove...
92krazy4katz
Yippee Dippyee dooo!!!! :-)
93margd
U TX Law prof and BuzzFeedNews expecting quick appeal by Trump lawyers to DC Circuit and Us Supreme Court:
Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck | 1:52 PM - 20 May 2019
It's hard to imagine the full D.C. Circuit (or most three-judge panels thereof) disagreeing with this ruling, which means this specific subpoena dispute could be heading to #SCOTUS—and quite quickly, at that.
...added, Zoe Tillman (BuzzFeedNews) @ZoeTillman | 1:51 PM - 20 May 2019:
BREAKING: A federal judge in DC will not block a House subpoena to Trump's accounting firm — expect a quick notice of appeal from Trump's lawyers https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019022/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.p... … More shortly.
Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck | 1:52 PM - 20 May 2019
It's hard to imagine the full D.C. Circuit (or most three-judge panels thereof) disagreeing with this ruling, which means this specific subpoena dispute could be heading to #SCOTUS—and quite quickly, at that.
...added, Zoe Tillman (BuzzFeedNews) @ZoeTillman | 1:51 PM - 20 May 2019:
BREAKING: A federal judge in DC will not block a House subpoena to Trump's accounting firm — expect a quick notice of appeal from Trump's lawyers https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019022/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.p... … More shortly.
94lriley
If there are illegalities (and I suspect that there may be) Trump will pressure Mazars not to produce them. Then again Mazars doesn't have any kind of presidential immunity--though there may be some culpability in what they know and they try to stonewall anyhow.
Might have to get their Iran project in play right away. Go to war and shift the national focus.
But here's another thing that's got to be shifted--the minds of Capital Hill republicans. There has been one out of somewhere of around 250 between the
House and the Senate. Romney could be two--at least he wasn't exactly throwing Amash under the bus.
Anyway there should be no bullshit anymore about opening up your tax records to the public if you want to run for high office--and not just President, Senate, House and even in States Governor, Lt. Governor, Atty. General should be the same.
Might have to get their Iran project in play right away. Go to war and shift the national focus.
But here's another thing that's got to be shifted--the minds of Capital Hill republicans. There has been one out of somewhere of around 250 between the
House and the Senate. Romney could be two--at least he wasn't exactly throwing Amash under the bus.
Anyway there should be no bullshit anymore about opening up your tax records to the public if you want to run for high office--and not just President, Senate, House and even in States Governor, Lt. Governor, Atty. General should be the same.
95margd
>91 margd: Mazars. Now, Deutsche Bank must provide Trump financial records to Congress.
Judge rejects Trump’s request to halt congressional subpoenas for his banking records
Renae Merle and Felicia Sonmez | May 22 at 4:38 PM
...The decision (Wednesday) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York could clear the way for Deutsche Bank and Capital One to hand over the president’s financial records to Democrats in the House. Trump’s attorneys could appeal the decision.
Attorneys for Trump, his family and the Trump Organization filed for a preliminary injunction earlier this month as part of a lawsuit seeking to block the two institutions from handing over documents to the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-rejects-trumps-request-to-halt-con...
__________________________________________________________________
... "Put simply, the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process."
— Judge Edgardo Ramos
Context: The House Financial Services and Intelligence committees subpoenaed Deutsche and other institutions last month in an effort to obtain years of financial records belonging to Trump, his company and his children. Trump sued the banks in response, arguing that the subpoenas "have no legitimate or lawful purpose" and were being weaponized for the purpose of "presidential harassment."
In a statement to CNBC, a Deutsche Bank spokesperson said: "We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations."...
https://www.axios.com/deutsche-bank-subpoena-trump-financial-records-a6e8e4e6-f8...
Judge rejects Trump’s request to halt congressional subpoenas for his banking records
Renae Merle and Felicia Sonmez | May 22 at 4:38 PM
...The decision (Wednesday) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York could clear the way for Deutsche Bank and Capital One to hand over the president’s financial records to Democrats in the House. Trump’s attorneys could appeal the decision.
Attorneys for Trump, his family and the Trump Organization filed for a preliminary injunction earlier this month as part of a lawsuit seeking to block the two institutions from handing over documents to the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-rejects-trumps-request-to-halt-con...
__________________________________________________________________
... "Put simply, the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process."
— Judge Edgardo Ramos
Context: The House Financial Services and Intelligence committees subpoenaed Deutsche and other institutions last month in an effort to obtain years of financial records belonging to Trump, his company and his children. Trump sued the banks in response, arguing that the subpoenas "have no legitimate or lawful purpose" and were being weaponized for the purpose of "presidential harassment."
In a statement to CNBC, a Deutsche Bank spokesperson said: "We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations."...
https://www.axios.com/deutsche-bank-subpoena-trump-financial-records-a6e8e4e6-f8...
96margd
McConnell's suffocation of democracy:
The Suffocation of Democracy
Christopher R. Browning | October 25, 2018 Issue
...If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar Germany, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. … McConnell and our dysfunctional and disrespected Congress have now ensured an increasingly dysfunctional and disrespected judiciary, and the constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of government is in peril...
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCarthy (House Rep for CA, Republican Leader) @GOPLeader | 11:02 AM - 22 May 2019:
Democrats are in a tailspin, and their “leadership” is out to lunch. They have achieved practically NOTHING since taking over the House, and their obsession with impeaching this president is paralyzing any progress we could be making as the UNITED States.
Ronald Klain @RonaldKlain | 6:07 PM - 22 May 2019
They (House Dems) passed 100 bills -- including health care, electoral reform, gun safety -- that are sitting in the Senate, awaiting action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McConnell vows to block Democratic proposals after 2020 elections: "Think of me as the Grim Reaper"
Igor Derysh | April 24, 2019
...McConnell told constituents in Owensboro, Kentucky, that none of the (Dem) proposals would come to pass if he is still in power in 2021.
..."Are we going to turn this into a socialist country? Don't assume it cannot happen," he added. "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate, think of me as the 'Grim Reaper.' None of that stuff is going to pass – none of it."...
...The numbers show that years of Republican fear mongering about Medicare for All and now the Green New Deal may not be the slam dunk strategy they assume it to be...
https://www.salon.com/2019/04/24/mcconnell-vows-to-block-democratic-proposals-af...
The Suffocation of Democracy
Christopher R. Browning | October 25, 2018 Issue
...If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar Germany, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. … McConnell and our dysfunctional and disrespected Congress have now ensured an increasingly dysfunctional and disrespected judiciary, and the constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of government is in peril...
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCarthy (House Rep for CA, Republican Leader) @GOPLeader | 11:02 AM - 22 May 2019:
Democrats are in a tailspin, and their “leadership” is out to lunch. They have achieved practically NOTHING since taking over the House, and their obsession with impeaching this president is paralyzing any progress we could be making as the UNITED States.
Ronald Klain @RonaldKlain | 6:07 PM - 22 May 2019
They (House Dems) passed 100 bills -- including health care, electoral reform, gun safety -- that are sitting in the Senate, awaiting action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McConnell vows to block Democratic proposals after 2020 elections: "Think of me as the Grim Reaper"
Igor Derysh | April 24, 2019
...McConnell told constituents in Owensboro, Kentucky, that none of the (Dem) proposals would come to pass if he is still in power in 2021.
..."Are we going to turn this into a socialist country? Don't assume it cannot happen," he added. "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate, think of me as the 'Grim Reaper.' None of that stuff is going to pass – none of it."...
...The numbers show that years of Republican fear mongering about Medicare for All and now the Green New Deal may not be the slam dunk strategy they assume it to be...
https://www.salon.com/2019/04/24/mcconnell-vows-to-block-democratic-proposals-af...
97margd
Joyce Alene (U Alabama Law) | 4:23 AM - 24 May 2019 :
This is a danger sign. Barr, who is willing to use criminal investigations as political tools, can now decide to selectively release classified information to further the WH’s false narrative. But he won’t file a motion asking a judge to turnover grand jury material to Congress
____________________________________________________________
Aaron Rupar (Vox) @atrupar | 2:25 PM - 23 May 2019:
REPORTER: Sir, the constitution says treason is punishable by death. You've accused your adversaries of treason. Who specifically are you accusing of treason?
TRUMP: A number of people. If you look at Comey, McCabe, if you look at Strzok, his lover Lisa Page... 😳
1:32 (video clip at https://twitter.com/atrupar)
This is a danger sign. Barr, who is willing to use criminal investigations as political tools, can now decide to selectively release classified information to further the WH’s false narrative. But he won’t file a motion asking a judge to turnover grand jury material to Congress
____________________________________________________________
Aaron Rupar (Vox) @atrupar | 2:25 PM - 23 May 2019:
REPORTER: Sir, the constitution says treason is punishable by death. You've accused your adversaries of treason. Who specifically are you accusing of treason?
TRUMP: A number of people. If you look at Comey, McCabe, if you look at Strzok, his lover Lisa Page... 😳
1:32 (video clip at https://twitter.com/atrupar)
98margd
Judge blocks Trump from building sections of border wall
DAISY NGUYEN and ELLIOT SPAGAT | May 24, 2019
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump from building key sections of his border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency, delivering what may prove a temporary setback on one of his highest priorities.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr.'s order prevents work from beginning on two of the highest-priority, Pentagon-funded wall projects — one spanning 46 miles (74 kilometers) in New Mexico and another covering 5 miles (8 kilometers) in Yuma, Arizona.
While the order applied only to those first-in-line projects, the judge made clear that he felt the challengers were likely to prevail at trial on their argument that the president was wrongly ignoring Congress' wishes by diverting Defense Department money.
"Congress's 'absolute' control over federal expenditures_even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important_is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one," he wrote in his 56-page opinion.
It wasn't a total defeat for the administration. Gilliam, an Oakland-based appointee of President Barack Obama, rejected a request by California and 19 other states to prevent the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars in Treasury asset forfeiture funds to wall construction, in part because he felt they were unlikely to prevail on arguments that the administration skirted environmental impact reviews.
The delay may be temporary. The question for Gilliam was whether to allow construction with Defense and Treasury funds while the lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the state attorneys general were being considered. The cases still must be heard on their merits.
...The administration faces several lawsuits over the emergency declaration but only one other seeks to block construction during the legal challenge. A judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday heard arguments on a challenge brought by the U.S. House of Representatives that says the money shifting violates the constitution. The judge was weighing whether the lawmakers even had the ability to sue the president instead of working through political routes to resolve the bitter dispute.
...Trump declared a national emergency in February after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House that led to a 35-day government shutdown. As a compromise on border and immigration enforcement, Congress set aside $1.375 billion to extend or replace existing barriers in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings.
Trump grudgingly accepted the money, but then declared the national emergency to siphon money from other government accounts, identifying up to $8.1 billion for wall construction. The funds include $3.6 billion from military construction funds, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counterdrug activities and $600 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.
The Defense Department has already transferred the counterdrug money. Patrick Shanahan, the acting defense secretary, is expected to decide any day whether to transfer the military construction funds.
...The administration has awarded 11 wall contracts for a combined $2.76 billion...and is preparing for a flurry of construction that the president is already celebrating at campaign-style rallies.
...Gilliam's ruling gives a green light — at least for now — for the administration to tap the Treasury funds, which it has said it plans to use to extend barriers in Rio Grande Valley.
...Trump inherited barriers covering 654 miles (1,046 kilometers), or about one-third of the border with Mexico. Of the 244 miles (390 kilometers) in awarded contracts, more than half is with Pentagon money. All but 14 miles (22 kilometers) awarded so far are to replace existing barriers, not extend coverage.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-blocks-trump-from-building-sections-of-border-w...
DAISY NGUYEN and ELLIOT SPAGAT | May 24, 2019
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump from building key sections of his border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency, delivering what may prove a temporary setback on one of his highest priorities.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr.'s order prevents work from beginning on two of the highest-priority, Pentagon-funded wall projects — one spanning 46 miles (74 kilometers) in New Mexico and another covering 5 miles (8 kilometers) in Yuma, Arizona.
While the order applied only to those first-in-line projects, the judge made clear that he felt the challengers were likely to prevail at trial on their argument that the president was wrongly ignoring Congress' wishes by diverting Defense Department money.
"Congress's 'absolute' control over federal expenditures_even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important_is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one," he wrote in his 56-page opinion.
It wasn't a total defeat for the administration. Gilliam, an Oakland-based appointee of President Barack Obama, rejected a request by California and 19 other states to prevent the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars in Treasury asset forfeiture funds to wall construction, in part because he felt they were unlikely to prevail on arguments that the administration skirted environmental impact reviews.
The delay may be temporary. The question for Gilliam was whether to allow construction with Defense and Treasury funds while the lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the state attorneys general were being considered. The cases still must be heard on their merits.
...The administration faces several lawsuits over the emergency declaration but only one other seeks to block construction during the legal challenge. A judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday heard arguments on a challenge brought by the U.S. House of Representatives that says the money shifting violates the constitution. The judge was weighing whether the lawmakers even had the ability to sue the president instead of working through political routes to resolve the bitter dispute.
...Trump declared a national emergency in February after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House that led to a 35-day government shutdown. As a compromise on border and immigration enforcement, Congress set aside $1.375 billion to extend or replace existing barriers in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings.
Trump grudgingly accepted the money, but then declared the national emergency to siphon money from other government accounts, identifying up to $8.1 billion for wall construction. The funds include $3.6 billion from military construction funds, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counterdrug activities and $600 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.
The Defense Department has already transferred the counterdrug money. Patrick Shanahan, the acting defense secretary, is expected to decide any day whether to transfer the military construction funds.
...The administration has awarded 11 wall contracts for a combined $2.76 billion...and is preparing for a flurry of construction that the president is already celebrating at campaign-style rallies.
...Gilliam's ruling gives a green light — at least for now — for the administration to tap the Treasury funds, which it has said it plans to use to extend barriers in Rio Grande Valley.
...Trump inherited barriers covering 654 miles (1,046 kilometers), or about one-third of the border with Mexico. Of the 244 miles (390 kilometers) in awarded contracts, more than half is with Pentagon money. All but 14 miles (22 kilometers) awarded so far are to replace existing barriers, not extend coverage.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-blocks-trump-from-building-sections-of-border-w...
99margd
Poutine must be loving this breakdown in norms for handling intelligence norms in the US:
Barr's new authority could endanger informants, including "sources in Russia, including a key informant who helped the C.I.A. conclude that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered the intrusion on the 2016 election."
Also at stake is "Five Eyes" arrangementin which other countries freely share their intelliegence with the US.
Potential Clash Over Secrets Looms Between Justice Dept. and C.I.A.
Attorney General William P. Barr has repeatedly described investigative efforts to understand the nature of links between Russia and the Trump campaign as “spying.”J
Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger | May 24, 2019
President Trump’s order allowing Attorney General William P. Barr to declassify any intelligence that led to the Russia investigation sets up a potential confrontation with the C.I.A. It effectively strips the agency of its most critical power: choosing which secrets it shares and which ones remain hidden.
Mr. Trump...wanted Mr. Barr to “get to the bottom” of what the intelligence agencies knew about the investigation into his campaign. He promised, “We’re exposing everything.”
The president raised questions about C.I.A. involvement in the origins of the Russia investigation, and other officials said Mr. Barr wanted to learn more about sources in Russia, including a key informant who helped the C.I.A. conclude that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered the intrusion on the 2016 election. Mr. Trump also invoked two close allies, Australia and Britain, telling reporters he wanted the attorney general to examine their roles in sharing intelligence about Russia’s interference.
The declassification order served as Mr. Trump’s counterpunch to the special counsel’s investigation. Since the release of the Mueller report, the president has been trying to focus attention on his accusations that the F.B.I. and intelligence agencies spied on his campaign. The new order, former officials said, could be intended to give more ammunition to that effort.
The intelligence agencies signaled on Friday that they would not easily give up their secrets. Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, pledged to cooperate with the review but also warned that the secrets of the intelligence community, or I.C., must be protected.
“I am confident that the attorney general will work with the I.C. in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk,” Mr. Coats said in a statement.
Though the ultimate power to declassify documents rests with the president, Mr. Trump’s delegation of that power to Mr. Barr effectively stripped Mr. Coats and the C.I.A. of control of their secrets. The move could endanger the agencies’ ability to keep the identities of their sources secret, former intelligence officials said.
...The intelligence agencies already have a degree of unease over the Justice Department’s ability to keep the identity of sources secret. The name of the F.B.I. informant involved in the initial investigation of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia was inadvertently made public.
...The most prominent of the C.I.A.’s sources of intelligence on Russia’s election interference was a person close to Mr. Putin who provided information about his involvement, former officials have said. The source turned over evidence for one of the last major intelligence conclusions that President Barack Obama made public before leaving office: that Mr. Putin himself was behind the Russia hack.
Long nurtured by the C.I.A., the source rose to a position that enabled the informant to provide key information in 2016 about the Russian leadership’s role in the interference campaign, the officials said.
...Mr. Trump’s comments mentioning Britain and Australia appeared to be a reference to the F.B.I.’s investigation of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide.
An Australian diplomat told the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016 that Mr. Papadopoulos had said that Russia had made an offer to help the Trump campaign by releasing stolen Democratic emails. The F.B.I. enlisted an informant, Stefan Halper, to talk with Mr. Papadopoulos, an investigative technique that prompted Mr. Trump to accuse the bureau of spying on his campaign.
...Some revelations about intelligence operations around the 2016 campaign have angered officials in Britain, Australia and other closely allied countries, according to former officials. Exposing further information about British or Australian cooperation in the investigation could deepen tensions with two of America’s closest intelligence partners.
“It is yet another step that will raise questions among our allies and partners about whether to share sensitive intelligence with us,” said Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the C.I.A. and host of the “Intelligence Matters” podcast...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/trump-barr-declassify-intelligenc...
Barr's new authority could endanger informants, including "sources in Russia, including a key informant who helped the C.I.A. conclude that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered the intrusion on the 2016 election."
Also at stake is "Five Eyes" arrangementin which other countries freely share their intelliegence with the US.
Potential Clash Over Secrets Looms Between Justice Dept. and C.I.A.
Attorney General William P. Barr has repeatedly described investigative efforts to understand the nature of links between Russia and the Trump campaign as “spying.”J
Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger | May 24, 2019
President Trump’s order allowing Attorney General William P. Barr to declassify any intelligence that led to the Russia investigation sets up a potential confrontation with the C.I.A. It effectively strips the agency of its most critical power: choosing which secrets it shares and which ones remain hidden.
Mr. Trump...wanted Mr. Barr to “get to the bottom” of what the intelligence agencies knew about the investigation into his campaign. He promised, “We’re exposing everything.”
The president raised questions about C.I.A. involvement in the origins of the Russia investigation, and other officials said Mr. Barr wanted to learn more about sources in Russia, including a key informant who helped the C.I.A. conclude that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered the intrusion on the 2016 election. Mr. Trump also invoked two close allies, Australia and Britain, telling reporters he wanted the attorney general to examine their roles in sharing intelligence about Russia’s interference.
The declassification order served as Mr. Trump’s counterpunch to the special counsel’s investigation. Since the release of the Mueller report, the president has been trying to focus attention on his accusations that the F.B.I. and intelligence agencies spied on his campaign. The new order, former officials said, could be intended to give more ammunition to that effort.
The intelligence agencies signaled on Friday that they would not easily give up their secrets. Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, pledged to cooperate with the review but also warned that the secrets of the intelligence community, or I.C., must be protected.
“I am confident that the attorney general will work with the I.C. in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk,” Mr. Coats said in a statement.
Though the ultimate power to declassify documents rests with the president, Mr. Trump’s delegation of that power to Mr. Barr effectively stripped Mr. Coats and the C.I.A. of control of their secrets. The move could endanger the agencies’ ability to keep the identities of their sources secret, former intelligence officials said.
...The intelligence agencies already have a degree of unease over the Justice Department’s ability to keep the identity of sources secret. The name of the F.B.I. informant involved in the initial investigation of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia was inadvertently made public.
...The most prominent of the C.I.A.’s sources of intelligence on Russia’s election interference was a person close to Mr. Putin who provided information about his involvement, former officials have said. The source turned over evidence for one of the last major intelligence conclusions that President Barack Obama made public before leaving office: that Mr. Putin himself was behind the Russia hack.
Long nurtured by the C.I.A., the source rose to a position that enabled the informant to provide key information in 2016 about the Russian leadership’s role in the interference campaign, the officials said.
...Mr. Trump’s comments mentioning Britain and Australia appeared to be a reference to the F.B.I.’s investigation of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide.
An Australian diplomat told the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016 that Mr. Papadopoulos had said that Russia had made an offer to help the Trump campaign by releasing stolen Democratic emails. The F.B.I. enlisted an informant, Stefan Halper, to talk with Mr. Papadopoulos, an investigative technique that prompted Mr. Trump to accuse the bureau of spying on his campaign.
...Some revelations about intelligence operations around the 2016 campaign have angered officials in Britain, Australia and other closely allied countries, according to former officials. Exposing further information about British or Australian cooperation in the investigation could deepen tensions with two of America’s closest intelligence partners.
“It is yet another step that will raise questions among our allies and partners about whether to share sensitive intelligence with us,” said Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the C.I.A. and host of the “Intelligence Matters” podcast...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/trump-barr-declassify-intelligenc...
100margd
Paranoid much?
Trump Just Accused The UK and Australia Of Spying On Him
Trump has gone full-blown conspiracy theory by claiming that the FBI, CIA, and the United Kingdom all spied on his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump thinks that the UK and Australia spied on him
Trump said, “I may well talk to her about that. There’s word and rumor that the FBI and others were involved. CIA were involved with the UK having to do with the Russian hoax. I may very well talk to her about that.”
Video:
Trump later added that he wants his attorney general to investigate if Australia and the UK spied on him, “What I’ve done is declassified everything. He can look. I hope he looks at the UK and I hope he looks at Australia and I hope he looks at Ukraine. I hope he looks at everything because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country.”
Video:
Trump is trying to create his own investigation to muddy the waters as Democrats investigate his conduct and behavior during the 2016 election, and through his presidency. Trump’s own FBI Director has already knocked down the president’s claim that the FBI spied on him. The US intelligence community has also debunked Trump’s claim that he was spied on. The UK has called Trump’s claim that they spied on his presidential campaign ridiculous.
Trump is doing an abysmal job of knocking down concerns about his mental health.
...What’s most dangerous for the country is that Donald Trump has sided with Russia and believes US allies Australia and the UK spied on him.
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/24/trump-uk-australia-spying.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Also dangerous for US is our president accusing UK and Australia, two of the "Five Eyes".
Poutine smiles.
Cue his wannabe baby bot.
Trump Just Accused The UK and Australia Of Spying On Him
Trump has gone full-blown conspiracy theory by claiming that the FBI, CIA, and the United Kingdom all spied on his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump thinks that the UK and Australia spied on him
Trump said, “I may well talk to her about that. There’s word and rumor that the FBI and others were involved. CIA were involved with the UK having to do with the Russian hoax. I may very well talk to her about that.”
Video:
Trump later added that he wants his attorney general to investigate if Australia and the UK spied on him, “What I’ve done is declassified everything. He can look. I hope he looks at the UK and I hope he looks at Australia and I hope he looks at Ukraine. I hope he looks at everything because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country.”
Video:
Trump is trying to create his own investigation to muddy the waters as Democrats investigate his conduct and behavior during the 2016 election, and through his presidency. Trump’s own FBI Director has already knocked down the president’s claim that the FBI spied on him. The US intelligence community has also debunked Trump’s claim that he was spied on. The UK has called Trump’s claim that they spied on his presidential campaign ridiculous.
Trump is doing an abysmal job of knocking down concerns about his mental health.
...What’s most dangerous for the country is that Donald Trump has sided with Russia and believes US allies Australia and the UK spied on him.
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/24/trump-uk-australia-spying.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Also dangerous for US is our president accusing UK and Australia, two of the "Five Eyes".
Poutine smiles.
Cue his wannabe baby bot.
101margd
Justice Dept. does not comply with court order to release info.
__________________________________________________
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:23 PM - 31 May 2019:
In Trump’s and Barr’s America, it looks like the Executive Branch has finally claimed it can defy not only the Legislative Branch but the Judicial Branch as well. Isn’t that called a dictatorship? Please tell me what I’m missing here. @JRubinBlogger
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:55 PM - 31 May 2019:
Even if the district court’s order to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts goes further than justified by the sentencing matter before the court, I would’ve thought that, in a government of laws, the only way to avoid compliance is to take an appeal to a higher court. Lawrence
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rubin (WaPo) @JRubinBlogger | 3:51 PM - 31 May 2019:
Inexcusable. Call Mr. Barr in and hold him in contempt of court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Department does not comply with court order to release transcripts of Michael Flynn’s conversations with Russian ambassador
Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman | May 31 at 6:28 PM
Federal prosecutors on Friday declined to make public transcripts of recorded conversations between Michael Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the United States in December 2016, despite a judge’s order.
In a court filing Friday, the Justice Department wrote that it did not rely on such recordings to establish Flynn’s guilt or determine a recommendation for his sentencing.
Prosecutors also failed to release an unredacted version of portions of the Mueller report related to Flynn that the judge had ordered be made public.
Flynn, who served briefly as President Trump’s first national security adviser, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and he cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. He is awaiting sentencing.
The government’s unusual response came after U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington ordered earlier in May that the Justice Department make public various materials related to the case, including transcripts of any audio recordings of Flynn, such as his conversations with Russian officials.
...It is unclear how the judge will react to the government’s noncompliance...Late last year, Sullivan postponed Flynn’s sentencing after angrily lambasting the former national security adviser for his actions, saying, “Arguably, you sold your country out.”
...Prosecutors Brandon L. Van Grack of the Justice Department’s national security division, who was formerly on Mueller’s team, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis of Washington provided little explanation as to why they were not turning over the transcripts but indicated that the judge had asked for material that was not relevant to Flynn’s eventual sentencing.
...Sullivan’s request was atypical, some legal experts said, in that he demanded the release of classified records that prosecutors did not use to prove Flynn’s guilt.
Still, some former prosecutors said the government’s response was also notably spare...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-fails-to-comply-with-...
__________________________________________________
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:23 PM - 31 May 2019:
In Trump’s and Barr’s America, it looks like the Executive Branch has finally claimed it can defy not only the Legislative Branch but the Judicial Branch as well. Isn’t that called a dictatorship? Please tell me what I’m missing here. @JRubinBlogger
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:55 PM - 31 May 2019:
Even if the district court’s order to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts goes further than justified by the sentencing matter before the court, I would’ve thought that, in a government of laws, the only way to avoid compliance is to take an appeal to a higher court. Lawrence
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rubin (WaPo) @JRubinBlogger | 3:51 PM - 31 May 2019:
Inexcusable. Call Mr. Barr in and hold him in contempt of court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Department does not comply with court order to release transcripts of Michael Flynn’s conversations with Russian ambassador
Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman | May 31 at 6:28 PM
Federal prosecutors on Friday declined to make public transcripts of recorded conversations between Michael Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the United States in December 2016, despite a judge’s order.
In a court filing Friday, the Justice Department wrote that it did not rely on such recordings to establish Flynn’s guilt or determine a recommendation for his sentencing.
Prosecutors also failed to release an unredacted version of portions of the Mueller report related to Flynn that the judge had ordered be made public.
Flynn, who served briefly as President Trump’s first national security adviser, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and he cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. He is awaiting sentencing.
The government’s unusual response came after U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington ordered earlier in May that the Justice Department make public various materials related to the case, including transcripts of any audio recordings of Flynn, such as his conversations with Russian officials.
...It is unclear how the judge will react to the government’s noncompliance...Late last year, Sullivan postponed Flynn’s sentencing after angrily lambasting the former national security adviser for his actions, saying, “Arguably, you sold your country out.”
...Prosecutors Brandon L. Van Grack of the Justice Department’s national security division, who was formerly on Mueller’s team, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis of Washington provided little explanation as to why they were not turning over the transcripts but indicated that the judge had asked for material that was not relevant to Flynn’s eventual sentencing.
...Sullivan’s request was atypical, some legal experts said, in that he demanded the release of classified records that prosecutors did not use to prove Flynn’s guilt.
Still, some former prosecutors said the government’s response was also notably spare...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-fails-to-comply-with-...
102davidgn
I hope things are about to reach a tipping point.
As he often does, Wilkerson nails it here.
Col. Larry Wilkerson on Mueller and Courage to Impeach Trump
Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi, Democrats are cowardly, incompetent and without courage to begin impeachment proceedings says Col. Larry Wilkerson
https://therealnews.com/stories/col-larry-wilkerson-on-mueller-and-courage-to-im...
Regardless of how any of this started, at this point Trump can be got for obstruction, at the very least. (One might also look at the possibility of censure for conduct unbecoming.)
However: going after Pence takes things to MUCH dicier terrain, I'm afraid.
As he often does, Wilkerson nails it here.
Col. Larry Wilkerson on Mueller and Courage to Impeach Trump
Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi, Democrats are cowardly, incompetent and without courage to begin impeachment proceedings says Col. Larry Wilkerson
https://therealnews.com/stories/col-larry-wilkerson-on-mueller-and-courage-to-im...
Regardless of how any of this started, at this point Trump can be got for obstruction, at the very least. (One might also look at the possibility of censure for conduct unbecoming.)
However: going after Pence takes things to MUCH dicier terrain, I'm afraid.
103lriley
#102--I think Wilkerson is right....but it might also help if Mueller weren't so weak in his language and say exactly what he means and that he'd say it in a hearing for all to see. The Dems seem to be giving him an out. As far as Pelosi and Schumer we've seen this stuff before from both of them--they're afraid of the consequences of acting so they do nothing. In a lot of ways Nancy's very good at what she does but she's too much the calculator...but this is what worries her--the Dems have won back the House--made her speaker again--a lot of the new members are from 50-50 or lean republican districts--they are center/right and a number of them are vulnerable in 2020. The Blue Dog coalition of conservative democrats number 27--the only one so far on board for impeachment out of that group is Filemon Vela--a Texas democrat. So part of her inertia stems from her desire to hold on to the House--that's the No. 1 priority for her and not impeaching Trump if that's what it takes to hold on to the majority even despite the damage he's doing or will do....FWIW it is a check on his presidency but IMO you've got to do what you think is right and best for the country and she's not ready to do it.
There are more Dems that are for impeachment than they make out by the way--this 30-35 number is more like 60 who are officially on board. There are another 30 or so separate from that group who voted to impeach back in January.
The other thing is those on the fence are being shown up by the courageous stance of Justin Amash. This guy who is very much a conservative is standing against his entire party right now.
There are more Dems that are for impeachment than they make out by the way--this 30-35 number is more like 60 who are officially on board. There are another 30 or so separate from that group who voted to impeach back in January.
The other thing is those on the fence are being shown up by the courageous stance of Justin Amash. This guy who is very much a conservative is standing against his entire party right now.
104davidgn
>103 lriley: Even though I often disagree with him, I've always appreciated Amash for his independent thinking.
105proximity1
"Col. Larry Wilkerson on Mueller and Courage to Impeach Trump
May 31, 2019"
The "courage to impeach"! Insane nonsense. You might as well talk of a heroin-junky's "courage" to get his next "fix" or the loan-shark's "courage" to land a new victim.
Before we get to how "courageous" is the mob which is bent upon getting rid of a duly-elected president of the United States by whatever means "works," we ought to be asking ourselves in each instance whether the means these people are taking is just, is valid, is proper, worthy of fair and honest people's engagement.
I’m not interested in gauging and in calling on the “courage” of those who are clearly quite prepared to “courageously” trash the foundational principles of (our imperfect and only semi-)democratic institutions simply because they are fanatically-driven in their cause.
"Courage" ought to be considered in the context of justice as well as sanity—unless one simply asserts that any and every "courageous" act is, by definition, and, of necessity, also a sane and well-advised and just one.
But who believes that?
Please, people.
Courage, sanity, respect for justice, on one hand and cowardice, insanity, and injustice, on the other—these are neither mutually exclusive nor unalloyed qualities; each of them falls along a spectrum and these characteristics are not necessarily related, being variable within individuals' and arising occasionally in their lives according to circumstances which may be lasting or may be fleeting.
So what then?
This: it is idle to become fixated on, as a first priority question, let alone an all-conclusive one, the matter of whether or not the task of impeaching Trump does or doesn't call for "courage" or whether those who hesitate before it are hesitating mainly because they are political wimps.
__________________________
Here, for example, firm resolve (too often confused with "courage") is dramatized: "We got ourselves a new courthouse! High time we had a hangin'!"
May 31, 2019"
The "courage to impeach"! Insane nonsense. You might as well talk of a heroin-junky's "courage" to get his next "fix" or the loan-shark's "courage" to land a new victim.
Before we get to how "courageous" is the mob which is bent upon getting rid of a duly-elected president of the United States by whatever means "works," we ought to be asking ourselves in each instance whether the means these people are taking is just, is valid, is proper, worthy of fair and honest people's engagement.
I’m not interested in gauging and in calling on the “courage” of those who are clearly quite prepared to “courageously” trash the foundational principles of (our imperfect and only semi-)democratic institutions simply because they are fanatically-driven in their cause.
"Courage" ought to be considered in the context of justice as well as sanity—unless one simply asserts that any and every "courageous" act is, by definition, and, of necessity, also a sane and well-advised and just one.
But who believes that?
Please, people.
Courage, sanity, respect for justice, on one hand and cowardice, insanity, and injustice, on the other—these are neither mutually exclusive nor unalloyed qualities; each of them falls along a spectrum and these characteristics are not necessarily related, being variable within individuals' and arising occasionally in their lives according to circumstances which may be lasting or may be fleeting.
So what then?
This: it is idle to become fixated on, as a first priority question, let alone an all-conclusive one, the matter of whether or not the task of impeaching Trump does or doesn't call for "courage" or whether those who hesitate before it are hesitating mainly because they are political wimps.
__________________________
Here, for example, firm resolve (too often confused with "courage") is dramatized: "We got ourselves a new courthouse! High time we had a hangin'!"
106John5918
>105 proximity1: Before we get to how "courageous" is the mob which is bent upon getting rid of a duly-elected president of the United States by whatever means "works," we ought to be asking ourselves in each instance whether the means these people are taking is just, is valid, is proper, worthy of fair and honest people's engagement.
In other words, we ought to be asking ourselves whether there are any legitimate grounds for impeachment, such as credible allegations of obstruction of justice (NB: the same charge which was levelled against President Bill Clinton). I think the answer to your question is, er, yes.
In other words, we ought to be asking ourselves whether there are any legitimate grounds for impeachment, such as credible allegations of obstruction of justice (NB: the same charge which was levelled against President Bill Clinton). I think the answer to your question is, er, yes.
107lriley
#105--I must say I'm surprised. You promised never to read any of my shit again and I think you promised David the same and here you commenting on his latest Wilkerson add. What's not surprising though is the way you continue to bluster and prattle on endlessly. And whether you like Amash or not (and I'm not really a fan) he's hardly a member of a mob when he's the only one and the real question is what's wrong with the rest of his party who seem to cower and lay aside former principals (even core ones) to accomodate this nut in the White House.
108margd
Schiff blasts DOJ over memo on withholding Trump tax returns
Tal Axelrod - 06/15/19
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) hammered the Justice Department on Friday over a legal opinion it wrote backing the Treasury Department’s defiance of a House subpoena for President Trump’s tax returns.
“What is the President hiding in his tax returns? And since when does 'shall' mean 'unless it displeases Trump?'" the House Intelligence Committee chairman tweeted late Friday.
"And, perhaps more importantly: What will be left of DOJ’s independence and reputation for impartial justice after Barr? The answer? Very little,” he added...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/448708-schiff-blasts-doj-over-memo-on-withhol...
Tal Axelrod - 06/15/19
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) hammered the Justice Department on Friday over a legal opinion it wrote backing the Treasury Department’s defiance of a House subpoena for President Trump’s tax returns.
“What is the President hiding in his tax returns? And since when does 'shall' mean 'unless it displeases Trump?'" the House Intelligence Committee chairman tweeted late Friday.
"And, perhaps more importantly: What will be left of DOJ’s independence and reputation for impartial justice after Barr? The answer? Very little,” he added...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/448708-schiff-blasts-doj-over-memo-on-withhol...
109Molly3028
How many billionaires and voters does it take to wipe out the norms and guardrails in a country with over 325 million people ~
three billionaires (Trump, Putin, R. Murdoch) and fewer than 80k voters spread out over three swing states.
Our Democracy is a VERY fragile entity!
three billionaires (Trump, Putin, R. Murdoch) and fewer than 80k voters spread out over three swing states.
Our Democracy is a VERY fragile entity!
110proximity1
>109 Molly3028:
"Fragile", your ass!
You and "margd" (and, with you, the millions of other disgruntled Hillary-supporters) flushed the democracy down the shitter from the moment you decided that there was no reason to respect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, preferring, instead, to trash the Constitution's principles and provisions, the electoral rules and procedures and everything and anything standing in your way to reversing Trump's election, whatever the cost to
the nations social and legal norms and institutions.
Fortunately, none of you reckoned on the arrival of William Barr in the office of the Attorney General. Your 'heroes' have their day of reckoning coming and they're going to be (leagally speaking) "in a (fucking) world of hurt ."
LOL!
"Fragile", your ass!
You and "margd" (and, with you, the millions of other disgruntled Hillary-supporters) flushed the democracy down the shitter from the moment you decided that there was no reason to respect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, preferring, instead, to trash the Constitution's principles and provisions, the electoral rules and procedures and everything and anything standing in your way to reversing Trump's election, whatever the cost to
the nations social and legal norms and institutions.
Fortunately, none of you reckoned on the arrival of William Barr in the office of the Attorney General. Your 'heroes' have their day of reckoning coming and they're going to be (leagally speaking) "in a (fucking) world of hurt ."
LOL!
1112wonderY
Trump Has Brilliantly Cornered Himself Where He’s Now Demanding Iran Abide by a Deal He Already Reneged On
The article ends with:
"It’s almost like the previous administration weighed the pros and cons and made a decision in the best strategic interest of the country. That feeling you have right now is nostalgia for competence."
The article ends with:
"It’s almost like the previous administration weighed the pros and cons and made a decision in the best strategic interest of the country. That feeling you have right now is nostalgia for competence."
112margd
Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall
Jacqueline Thomsen | 06/28/19
...U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court (blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border--NM, CA, AZ and TX), after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration’s use of military funds for the border wall.
President Trump declared a national emergency earlier this year in order to divert roughly $6 billion in Defense Department funds toward border wall construction. Friday's ruling blocks the administration from using $2.5 billion in military funds for a border wall.
...lawsuit brought forward by several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Sierra Club, challenging the diversion of the military funds under the scope of the national emergency order.
...Trump administration...use of the military funds was lawful under the scope of the national emergency, as the need for the funding was "unforeseen"...if they are unable to award the federal dollars to contractors by the end of the fiscal year, they may lose the funding.
...Gilliam wrote that the administration lawyers "present no new evidence or argument for why the court should depart from its prior decision, and it will not.... Because no new factual or legal arguments persuade the court that its analysis in the preliminary injunction order was wrong, the groups’ likelihood of success on the merits has ripened into actual success," the ruling reads....groups suing to block use of military funds for the wall would suffer "irreparable harm" over border wall construction because it "will harm their ability to recreate in and otherwise enjoy public land along the border."
...while (Gilliam) does not "minimize" the administration's interest in border security, he determined that "the balance of hardships and public interest favors" is in favor of the groups opposing the wall. Still, the judge declined to rule on whether the Trump administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Congress was clear in denying funds for Trump’s xenophobic obsession with a wasteful, harmful wall," Dror Ladin, an attorney with the ACLU who argued for the injunction in court, said in a statement Friday. "This decision upholds the basic principle that the president has no power to spend taxpayer money without Congress’ approval."
...Gilliam also issued a ruling in a separate case stopping the Trump administration from moving forward with border wall construction in New Mexico and California while that legal challenge plays out.
The two border states had both requested in a court filing earlier this month that the judge stop the construction, claiming it would damage the environment and infringe upon those states' rights.
The judge on Friday partially ruled in the states' favor, but determined that they did not reach the bar needed for him to issue a permanent injunction in that case.
...The Democratic-controlled House has also sought to prevent Trump from using military funds for a border wall. They argue that only Congress has the authority to appropriate funds, and the president's move is therefore unlawful – a legal argument echoed in both of the California lawsuits.
However, a judge in D.C. ruled that the House did not have the power to sue the administration in federal court, and later dismissed the lawsuit at the House's request. The lawmakers are now appealing their case.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/450987-judge-permanently-blocks-tru...
Jacqueline Thomsen | 06/28/19
...U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court (blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States's southern border--NM, CA, AZ and TX), after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration’s use of military funds for the border wall.
President Trump declared a national emergency earlier this year in order to divert roughly $6 billion in Defense Department funds toward border wall construction. Friday's ruling blocks the administration from using $2.5 billion in military funds for a border wall.
...lawsuit brought forward by several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Sierra Club, challenging the diversion of the military funds under the scope of the national emergency order.
...Trump administration...use of the military funds was lawful under the scope of the national emergency, as the need for the funding was "unforeseen"...if they are unable to award the federal dollars to contractors by the end of the fiscal year, they may lose the funding.
...Gilliam wrote that the administration lawyers "present no new evidence or argument for why the court should depart from its prior decision, and it will not.... Because no new factual or legal arguments persuade the court that its analysis in the preliminary injunction order was wrong, the groups’ likelihood of success on the merits has ripened into actual success," the ruling reads....groups suing to block use of military funds for the wall would suffer "irreparable harm" over border wall construction because it "will harm their ability to recreate in and otherwise enjoy public land along the border."
...while (Gilliam) does not "minimize" the administration's interest in border security, he determined that "the balance of hardships and public interest favors" is in favor of the groups opposing the wall. Still, the judge declined to rule on whether the Trump administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Congress was clear in denying funds for Trump’s xenophobic obsession with a wasteful, harmful wall," Dror Ladin, an attorney with the ACLU who argued for the injunction in court, said in a statement Friday. "This decision upholds the basic principle that the president has no power to spend taxpayer money without Congress’ approval."
...Gilliam also issued a ruling in a separate case stopping the Trump administration from moving forward with border wall construction in New Mexico and California while that legal challenge plays out.
The two border states had both requested in a court filing earlier this month that the judge stop the construction, claiming it would damage the environment and infringe upon those states' rights.
The judge on Friday partially ruled in the states' favor, but determined that they did not reach the bar needed for him to issue a permanent injunction in that case.
...The Democratic-controlled House has also sought to prevent Trump from using military funds for a border wall. They argue that only Congress has the authority to appropriate funds, and the president's move is therefore unlawful – a legal argument echoed in both of the California lawsuits.
However, a judge in D.C. ruled that the House did not have the power to sue the administration in federal court, and later dismissed the lawsuit at the House's request. The lawmakers are now appealing their case.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/450987-judge-permanently-blocks-tru...
113StormRaven
110: Your posts contain all the political acumen of a drunk unemployed homeless person standing on a street corner screaming about how your tinfoil hat protects you from mind control rays.
You and "margd" (and, with you, the millions of other disgruntled Hillary-supporters) flushed the democracy down the shitter from the moment you decided that there was no reason to respect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, preferring, instead, to trash the Constitution's principles and provisions, the electoral rules and procedures and everything and anything standing in your way to reversing Trump's election, whatever the cost to the nations social and legal norms and institutions.
Literally none of that is what happened. No one but Trump and his supporters (and by extension, you) have trashed the Constitution's principles and provisions or electoral rules and provisions. Literally everything you post here is little more than complete bullshit.
Fortunately, none of you reckoned on the arrival of William Barr in the office of the Attorney General. Your 'heroes' have their day of reckoning coming and they're going to be (leagally speaking) "in a (fucking) world of hurt ."
This will never happen. Barr is borderline incompetent, which is why Trump appointed him, and none of the people you keep screaming about being "in a world of hurt" will ever be indicted, much less prosecuted, because there is literally no legal grounds to do so. Trump's cronies, on the other hand, seem to go to jail with fair regularity, so if I were Barr, I'd be worried about whether I was going to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit soon.
You and "margd" (and, with you, the millions of other disgruntled Hillary-supporters) flushed the democracy down the shitter from the moment you decided that there was no reason to respect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, preferring, instead, to trash the Constitution's principles and provisions, the electoral rules and procedures and everything and anything standing in your way to reversing Trump's election, whatever the cost to the nations social and legal norms and institutions.
Literally none of that is what happened. No one but Trump and his supporters (and by extension, you) have trashed the Constitution's principles and provisions or electoral rules and provisions. Literally everything you post here is little more than complete bullshit.
Fortunately, none of you reckoned on the arrival of William Barr in the office of the Attorney General. Your 'heroes' have their day of reckoning coming and they're going to be (leagally speaking) "in a (fucking) world of hurt ."
This will never happen. Barr is borderline incompetent, which is why Trump appointed him, and none of the people you keep screaming about being "in a world of hurt" will ever be indicted, much less prosecuted, because there is literally no legal grounds to do so. Trump's cronies, on the other hand, seem to go to jail with fair regularity, so if I were Barr, I'd be worried about whether I was going to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit soon.
114margd
Trump tax returns:
Case 1:19-cv-01974 Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 49
DC District Court
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION (49 p)
1.The Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives (Ways and Means or Committee) brings this action against Defendants United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury or Treasury Department), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, and IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig to seek relief from Defendants’ refusal to produce tax return information concerning President Donald J. Trump in response to the Committee’s valid oversight requests...
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/HouseTaxLawsuit07022019.pdf?mod=art...
____________________________________________________________________
Connection?
'Something came up': Vice President Mike Pence abruptly cancels trip for unclear reason
Maureen Groppe and John Fritze | July 2, 2019
..."Something came up that required the VP to remain in Washington, DC. It’s no cause for alarm," spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted around noon. "He looks forward to rescheduling the trip to New Hampshire very soon."
Pence's top aide, Marc Short, told reporters that the reason for the cancellation would become known “in a few weeks."
Pence had been scheduled to meet with former patients at a drug addiction treatment center and comment on the opioid crisis...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/02/vice-president-mike-penc...
Case 1:19-cv-01974 Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 49
DC District Court
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION (49 p)
1.The Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives (Ways and Means or Committee) brings this action against Defendants United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury or Treasury Department), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, and IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig to seek relief from Defendants’ refusal to produce tax return information concerning President Donald J. Trump in response to the Committee’s valid oversight requests...
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/HouseTaxLawsuit07022019.pdf?mod=art...
____________________________________________________________________
Connection?
'Something came up': Vice President Mike Pence abruptly cancels trip for unclear reason
Maureen Groppe and John Fritze | July 2, 2019
..."Something came up that required the VP to remain in Washington, DC. It’s no cause for alarm," spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted around noon. "He looks forward to rescheduling the trip to New Hampshire very soon."
Pence's top aide, Marc Short, told reporters that the reason for the cancellation would become known “in a few weeks."
Pence had been scheduled to meet with former patients at a drug addiction treatment center and comment on the opioid crisis...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/02/vice-president-mike-penc...
115margd
Appeals court: Trump can't use Pentagon cash for border wall
Byelliot spagat | Jul 3, 2019
...A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with a lower court ruling that prevented the government from tapping Defense Department counterdrug money to build high-priority sections of wall in Arizona, California and New Mexico.
...he case may still be considered, but the administration cannot build during the legal challenge.
"As for the public interest, we conclude that it is 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," wrote Judges Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/appeals-court-trump-pentagon-cash-bord...
Byelliot spagat | Jul 3, 2019
...A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with a lower court ruling that prevented the government from tapping Defense Department counterdrug money to build high-priority sections of wall in Arizona, California and New Mexico.
...he case may still be considered, but the administration cannot build during the legal challenge.
"As for the public interest, we conclude that it is 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," wrote Judges Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/appeals-court-trump-pentagon-cash-bord...
116John5918
Sir Kim Darroch: Five things the UK ambassador row reveal about Trump (BBC)
- Norm-breaking crosses borders
- The leaked cables stung Trump
- The American media shrug
- This is how Trump "fires" people
- The Trump rift with the State Department continues
- Norm-breaking crosses borders
- The leaked cables stung Trump
- The American media shrug
- This is how Trump "fires" people
- The Trump rift with the State Department continues
117margd
#6 People/nations Trump perceives as weak are treated badly...
Heads up Britain! Do you really want to jump from EU pan into Trump fire?
(Compare the accommodations accorded Kim Jong Un, who was far more insulting to Trump than Darroch ever was.)
#7 The campaign against multilateralism is international.
I read somewhere that Darroch was pro-EU, and that might have been the reason his cables were leaked.
WHO leaked, and why, and at who's behest.
Revealed: The Explosive Secret Recording That Shows How Russia Tried To Funnel Millions To The “European Trump”
Alberto Nardelli | July 10, 2019
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-sec...
Heads up Britain! Do you really want to jump from EU pan into Trump fire?
(Compare the accommodations accorded Kim Jong Un, who was far more insulting to Trump than Darroch ever was.)
#7 The campaign against multilateralism is international.
I read somewhere that Darroch was pro-EU, and that might have been the reason his cables were leaked.
WHO leaked, and why, and at who's behest.
Revealed: The Explosive Secret Recording That Shows How Russia Tried To Funnel Millions To The “European Trump”
Alberto Nardelli | July 10, 2019
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-sec...
118John5918
'Go back home': Trump aims racist attack at Ocasio-Cortez and other congresswomen (Guardian)
Trump under fire for racially-charged tweets against congresswomen (BBC)
He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back"...
Of the four congresswomen, three - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley - were born and raised in the US, while the fourth, Ilhan Omar, moved to the US as a child.
Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump himself was born...
'Disgusting, racist': Trump slammed for attack on congresswomen (All Jazeera)
US President Donald Trump's Twitter attacks have been described as racist on Sunday shortly after he attacked a group of Democratic congresswomen on Twitter, telling them to go back where they came from despite being American citizens...
Donald Trump used racist language to attack “the Squad” on Sunday, saying four progressive Democrats who have clashed with party leaders should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”.
“You can’t leave fast enough,” he added.
Trump did not name his targets but the members of “the Squad” are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts; Rashida Tlaib of Michigan; and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
Only Omar, who is from Somalia, was not born in America. Pressley is African American, Tlaib was born to Palestinian immigrants and Ocasio-Cortez comes from a New York-Puerto Rican family.
Tlaib responded by saying Trump “needs to be impeached”.
Ocasio-Cortez said “the country I ‘come from’, and the country we all swear to, is the United States”. Omar called Trump “the worst, most corrupt and inept president we have ever seen”. Pressley said: “This is what racism looks like. We are what democracy looks like.”
Bernie Sanders was among others who called the attack racist. “When I call the president a racist,” the Vermont senator wrote, “this is what I’m talking about”...
Trump under fire for racially-charged tweets against congresswomen (BBC)
He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back"...
Of the four congresswomen, three - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley - were born and raised in the US, while the fourth, Ilhan Omar, moved to the US as a child.
Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump himself was born...
'Disgusting, racist': Trump slammed for attack on congresswomen (All Jazeera)
US President Donald Trump's Twitter attacks have been described as racist on Sunday shortly after he attacked a group of Democratic congresswomen on Twitter, telling them to go back where they came from despite being American citizens...
119margd
“go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”
That goes for Trump's mom, paternal grandfather, wife, in-laws, too?
We naturalized Americans should be ticked, as should we all.
A poetic version of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller's 1946 confession:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
That goes for Trump's mom, paternal grandfather, wife, in-laws, too?
We naturalized Americans should be ticked, as should we all.
A poetic version of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller's 1946 confession:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
121margd
I am sure Trump is happy with fallout from last weekend's 'squad' tweets--no more talk about migrant holding conditions or Epstein trafficking underage girls.
Apparently...not only did Trump and Epstein socialize, AG Barr's law firm represented Epstein, there's some Ken Starr connection, and Barr's father was headmaster at girls' school where Epsetin was hired without a degree to teach math: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-dalton-teacher.html.
Eew, eew, and eew!
Remember the Judge Kennedy-Trumps-Kavanaugh connection?
Whadda swamp...
Apparently...not only did Trump and Epstein socialize, AG Barr's law firm represented Epstein, there's some Ken Starr connection, and Barr's father was headmaster at girls' school where Epsetin was hired without a degree to teach math: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-dalton-teacher.html.
Eew, eew, and eew!
Remember the Judge Kennedy-Trumps-Kavanaugh connection?
Whadda swamp...
122margd
Malcolm Nance @MalcolmNance 1:50 PM - 15 Jul 2019
Republicans who publicly venerate a former communist exKGB Officer have no right to call anyone a communist.
They admire Kim Jong Un and Xi JinPin - both hardcore communists
They’re literally commie lovers!
...@LindseyGrahamSC on Fox & Friends: "We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists ... they're anti-Semitic. They're anti-America."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 2:08 PM - 15 Jul 2019
We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country....
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 2:26 PM - 15 Jul 2019
The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” but now they are forced to embrace them. That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!
Republicans who publicly venerate a former communist exKGB Officer have no right to call anyone a communist.
They admire Kim Jong Un and Xi JinPin - both hardcore communists
They’re literally commie lovers!
...@LindseyGrahamSC on Fox & Friends: "We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists ... they're anti-Semitic. They're anti-America."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 2:08 PM - 15 Jul 2019
We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country....
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 2:26 PM - 15 Jul 2019
The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” but now they are forced to embrace them. That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!
123margd
>121 margd: I am sure Trump is happy with fallout from last weekend's 'squad' tweets--no more talk about migrant holding conditions or Epstein trafficking underage girls.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 5:37 AM - 17 Jul 2019 :
https://twitter.com/atrupar
Wow. Trump can be seen getting handsy with women in this (MSNBC) footage of him partying with Epstein at Mar-a-Lago.
/>
0:19
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 5:37 AM - 17 Jul 2019 :
https://twitter.com/atrupar
Wow. Trump can be seen getting handsy with women in this (MSNBC) footage of him partying with Epstein at Mar-a-Lago.
/>
0:19
124RickHarsch
>123 margd: 1992 video turned my stomach...something that doesn't happen often
125margd
House votes to hold Barr and Ross in criminal contempt
Orion Rummler | 7/17/2019
...The House voted 230-198 to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt of Congress on Wednesday for withholding subpoenaed materials related to the failed 2020 Census citizenship question.
...What's next: After Barr and Ross are referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, there is no real risk that the DOJ will take action, since Barr heads the agency. The fight over this citizenship question could take years and potentially outlast Trump's current term, based on legal precedent from the Obama administration.
https://www.axios.com/house-votes-to-hold-barr-and-ross-in-criminal-contempt-fe9...
Orion Rummler | 7/17/2019
...The House voted 230-198 to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt of Congress on Wednesday for withholding subpoenaed materials related to the failed 2020 Census citizenship question.
...What's next: After Barr and Ross are referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, there is no real risk that the DOJ will take action, since Barr heads the agency. The fight over this citizenship question could take years and potentially outlast Trump's current term, based on legal precedent from the Obama administration.
https://www.axios.com/house-votes-to-hold-barr-and-ross-in-criminal-contempt-fe9...
126mamzel
>124 RickHarsch: My stomach was turned as well, not only because of the two men involved but the cheerleaders tossing their hair around and rubbing up to the two of them. I wonder how they perceive their behavior now. Do they have daughters? Would they be happy if their girls were at such a party?
127LolaWalser
>126 mamzel:
Do you remember when you were a teenager or thereabouts, did you have a wise, not to say sanctimonious, time-travelling older version of yourself perched on your shoulder informing you about your future thoughts on your life and experiences?
Do you remember when you were a teenager or thereabouts, did you have a wise, not to say sanctimonious, time-travelling older version of yourself perched on your shoulder informing you about your future thoughts on your life and experiences?
128LolaWalser
Lest anyone feels like slut-shaming "Buffalo Jills"... because of course women are to blame for men's infinite sleazebaggery... this is interesting:
In 1995, seeking respect and better pay, the Jills formed the first cheerleaders union in the NFL.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Jills
In 1995, seeking respect and better pay, the Jills formed the first cheerleaders union in the NFL.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Jills
129LolaWalser
double post
130RickHarsch
Not to say sanctimonious, not to say cannibal...
131margd
Trump Disavows ‘Send Her Back’ Chant as G.O.P. Frets Over Ugly Phrase
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Maggie Haberman and Michael Crowley | July 18, 2019
President Trump said he disagreed with his supporters chanting “send her back” after he railed against a Somali-born congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, at a rally Wednesday in North Carolina. Video contradicts his claim.
WASHINGTON — Nervous Republicans, from senior members of Congress to his own daughter Ivanka, urged President Trump on Thursday to repudiate the “send her back” chant directed at a Somali-born congresswoman during his speech the night before at a rally in North Carolina, amid widespread fears that the rally had veered into territory that could hurt their party in 2020.
...Pressed on why he did not stop it, Mr. Trump said, “I think I did — I started speaking very quickly.” In fact, as the crowd roared “send her back,” Mr. Trump paused and looked around silently for more than 10 seconds as the scene unfolded in front of him, doing nothing to halt the chorus. “I didn’t say that,” he added. “They did.”
...while Republicans regard Ms. Omar and her fellow progressives who make up “the squad” — Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — as particularly good embodiments of that radicalism, there is some concern that suggesting they leave the country makes the argument too personal and could backfire.
...Congressional Republicans, who offered only muted protest over the president’s initial remarks about the congresswomen, recognized that the spectacle in Greenville demanded a more vocal response. Some suggested that the episode, with its intimations of political persecution and even physical force, had violated sacred democratic norms...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/us/politics/ilhan-omar-donald-trump.html
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Maggie Haberman and Michael Crowley | July 18, 2019
President Trump said he disagreed with his supporters chanting “send her back” after he railed against a Somali-born congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, at a rally Wednesday in North Carolina. Video contradicts his claim.
WASHINGTON — Nervous Republicans, from senior members of Congress to his own daughter Ivanka, urged President Trump on Thursday to repudiate the “send her back” chant directed at a Somali-born congresswoman during his speech the night before at a rally in North Carolina, amid widespread fears that the rally had veered into territory that could hurt their party in 2020.
...Pressed on why he did not stop it, Mr. Trump said, “I think I did — I started speaking very quickly.” In fact, as the crowd roared “send her back,” Mr. Trump paused and looked around silently for more than 10 seconds as the scene unfolded in front of him, doing nothing to halt the chorus. “I didn’t say that,” he added. “They did.”
...while Republicans regard Ms. Omar and her fellow progressives who make up “the squad” — Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — as particularly good embodiments of that radicalism, there is some concern that suggesting they leave the country makes the argument too personal and could backfire.
...Congressional Republicans, who offered only muted protest over the president’s initial remarks about the congresswomen, recognized that the spectacle in Greenville demanded a more vocal response. Some suggested that the episode, with its intimations of political persecution and even physical force, had violated sacred democratic norms...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/us/politics/ilhan-omar-donald-trump.html
132John5918
Pete Buttigieg: white supremacy could be the end of America (Guardian)
“That is the only issue that almost ended this country,” Buttigieg said. “We’ve had a lot challenges in this country, but the one that actually almost ended this country in the civil war was white supremacy.
“It could be the lurking issue that ends this country in the future, if we don’t wrangle it down in our time”...
Interesting parallels between the extreme right wing in UK and USA here. In UK there are warnings that the extreme right wing agenda could lead to the end of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which they claim to value so highly. In the USA there is now this warnings that the extreme right wing agenda could be the end of the USA, which they claim to value so highly.
“That is the only issue that almost ended this country,” Buttigieg said. “We’ve had a lot challenges in this country, but the one that actually almost ended this country in the civil war was white supremacy.
“It could be the lurking issue that ends this country in the future, if we don’t wrangle it down in our time”...
Interesting parallels between the extreme right wing in UK and USA here. In UK there are warnings that the extreme right wing agenda could lead to the end of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which they claim to value so highly. In the USA there is now this warnings that the extreme right wing agenda could be the end of the USA, which they claim to value so highly.
133John5918
A Catholic perspective from a Franciscan brother:
Catholics’ Collaboration with Trump is Scandalous
Br. Joseph Nangle belongs to the Order of Friars Minor (OFM) and has served as a missionary in Bolivia for over 15 years, was another 12 years the co-director of Franciscan Mission Service and last Thursday he was arrested, along with 70 other Catholics, for protesting against the immigration policy of the government of Donald Trump...
The collaboration and support of the Trump horror by our Christian and or Catholic brothers and sisters is a tragedy, a scandal and something incredible...
Catholics’ Collaboration with Trump is Scandalous
Br. Joseph Nangle belongs to the Order of Friars Minor (OFM) and has served as a missionary in Bolivia for over 15 years, was another 12 years the co-director of Franciscan Mission Service and last Thursday he was arrested, along with 70 other Catholics, for protesting against the immigration policy of the government of Donald Trump...
The collaboration and support of the Trump horror by our Christian and or Catholic brothers and sisters is a tragedy, a scandal and something incredible...
134margd
I think I saw footage of that-- nun in her habit being led away her hands cuffed behind her back... Proud moment for the two of them. Authorities, not so much...
135margd
While bemoaning Mueller probe, Trump falsely says the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever I want’
Michael Brice-Saddler | July 23 at 9:46 PM
...on Tuesday while addressing a crowd of teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington.
...Trump lamented the duration and cost of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which he has repeatedly said found “no collusion, no obstruction.”
“Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” he said. “But I don’t even talk about that.”
...Trump in his Tuesday speech also...falsely claimed Democrats saw wins in the 2018 elections because undocumented immigrants voted “many times — not just twice.”
...Article II grants the president “executive power.” It does not indicate the president has total power. Article II is the same part of the Constitution that describes some of Congress’s oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency. It also details how the president may be removed from office via impeachment...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/23/trump-falsely-tells-auditoriu...
Michael Brice-Saddler | July 23 at 9:46 PM
...on Tuesday while addressing a crowd of teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington.
...Trump lamented the duration and cost of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which he has repeatedly said found “no collusion, no obstruction.”
“Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president,” he said. “But I don’t even talk about that.”
...Trump in his Tuesday speech also...falsely claimed Democrats saw wins in the 2018 elections because undocumented immigrants voted “many times — not just twice.”
...Article II grants the president “executive power.” It does not indicate the president has total power. Article II is the same part of the Constitution that describes some of Congress’s oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency. It also details how the president may be removed from office via impeachment...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/23/trump-falsely-tells-auditoriu...
136margd
>125 margd: contd
Surprise, surprise!
DOJ says it won't prosecute Barr, Ross after criminal contempt vote
Jacqueline Thomsen | july 24, 2019
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Wednesday that federal prosecutors will not prosecute Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross following a House vote to hold the officials in contempt for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas. (citizenship question on census)
"The Department of Justice's long-standing position is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege," Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
...Rosen pointed to Trump's assertion of executive privilege in his letter to Pelosi on Wednesday. And he highlighted DOJ declining to prosecute officials during previous administrations, such as former Attorney General Eric Holder after the House voted to hold him in contempt in 2012.
"Consistent with this long-standing position and uniform practice, the Department has determined that the responses by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to the subpoenas issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform did not constitute a crime, and accordingly the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General or the Secretary," Rosen wrote.
The announcement came on a busy news day (they always do!)...
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/454606-doj-says-it-wont-prosecute-b...
Surprise, surprise!
DOJ says it won't prosecute Barr, Ross after criminal contempt vote
Jacqueline Thomsen | july 24, 2019
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Wednesday that federal prosecutors will not prosecute Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross following a House vote to hold the officials in contempt for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas. (citizenship question on census)
"The Department of Justice's long-standing position is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege," Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
...Rosen pointed to Trump's assertion of executive privilege in his letter to Pelosi on Wednesday. And he highlighted DOJ declining to prosecute officials during previous administrations, such as former Attorney General Eric Holder after the House voted to hold him in contempt in 2012.
"Consistent with this long-standing position and uniform practice, the Department has determined that the responses by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to the subpoenas issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform did not constitute a crime, and accordingly the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General or the Secretary," Rosen wrote.
The announcement came on a busy news day (they always do!)...
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/454606-doj-says-it-wont-prosecute-b...
137John5918
Cardinal Cupich: ‘Never forget’ policies that led to Holocaust began with words (Crux)
Adolf Hitler’s rise to power and the policies that led to the Holocaust all began with words, including words that targeted “the other,” Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago wrote in a July 24 commentary in the Chicago Catholic, the archdiocesan newspaper.
The “calculated stages” the Nazis carried out that ultimately resulted in the Holocaust began with bigoted language against minorities that the majority soon came to accept as credible, said the cardinal, adding that these lessons from history must be recalled today when many in society target immigrants, refugees and various groups of people as “the other”...
“Such brutality does not come naturally to human beings; it is taught progressively through the creation of a false narrative about others, which, step by step, is accepted as the new normal”...
Hitler’s rise to power and the policies that led to the Holocaust developed through calculated stages,” Cupich said, starting with “bigoted language targeting a minority,” which “was dismissed by society” because it came from a few people initially, then “in time others reinforced the message, giving it credibility.”
“The next stage came as those targeted were defined as ‘other,'” the cardinal said. “The ‘other’ soon became the scapegoat, responsible for the grievances people were told they should have... This allowed a narrative to be created for the nation, whose rise to greatness could only be achieved through the elimination of those who thwarted that potential.”
"We need to understand that it all began with words. Words that called people ‘other,’ that targeted people as worthy of fear, or threatening to our national greatness, and then eventually dangerous and requiring elimination”...
138margd
>137 John5918: Hopefully, ship is turning:
Have We No Decency? A Response to President Trump
The Washington National Cathedral | July 30, 2019
...As Americans, we have had such moments before, and as a people we have acted. Events of the last week call to mind a similarly dark period in our history:
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. … You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”
That was U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch on June 9, 1954, when he confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy before a live television audience, effectively ending McCarthy’s notorious hold on the nation. Until then, under the guise of ridding the country of Communist infiltration, McCarthy had free rein to say and do whatever he wished. With unbridled speech, he stoked the fears of an anxious nation with lies; destroyed the careers of countless Americans; and bullied into submissive silence anyone who dared criticize him.
In retrospect, it’s clear that Welch’s question was directed less toward McCarthy and more to the nation as a whole. Had Americans had enough? Where was our sense of decency?...
https://cathedral.org/have-we-no-decency-a-response-to-president-trump.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Carson Booted From Baltimore Church Property; Defends Trump Tweets While Discussing City’s Problems
Mike Hellgren | July 31, 2019
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Dr. Ben Carson, the U.S. Housing & Urban Development Secretary, was in Baltimore Wednesday to talk about opportunity zones and federal programs that might help Baltimore revitalize its poorest communities. This comes days after President Donald Trump tweeted that the city was a “rat and rodent-infested mess.”
Carson, who worked as a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital for 36 years, said he has a special place in his heart for Baltimore and for the people of Baltimore. But when he was holding a press conference Wednesday morning, a church kicked him off of their property...
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/07/31/hud-secretary-ben-carson-baltimore-tru...
Have We No Decency? A Response to President Trump
The Washington National Cathedral | July 30, 2019
...As Americans, we have had such moments before, and as a people we have acted. Events of the last week call to mind a similarly dark period in our history:
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. … You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”
That was U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch on June 9, 1954, when he confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy before a live television audience, effectively ending McCarthy’s notorious hold on the nation. Until then, under the guise of ridding the country of Communist infiltration, McCarthy had free rein to say and do whatever he wished. With unbridled speech, he stoked the fears of an anxious nation with lies; destroyed the careers of countless Americans; and bullied into submissive silence anyone who dared criticize him.
In retrospect, it’s clear that Welch’s question was directed less toward McCarthy and more to the nation as a whole. Had Americans had enough? Where was our sense of decency?...
https://cathedral.org/have-we-no-decency-a-response-to-president-trump.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Carson Booted From Baltimore Church Property; Defends Trump Tweets While Discussing City’s Problems
Mike Hellgren | July 31, 2019
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Dr. Ben Carson, the U.S. Housing & Urban Development Secretary, was in Baltimore Wednesday to talk about opportunity zones and federal programs that might help Baltimore revitalize its poorest communities. This comes days after President Donald Trump tweeted that the city was a “rat and rodent-infested mess.”
Carson, who worked as a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital for 36 years, said he has a special place in his heart for Baltimore and for the people of Baltimore. But when he was holding a press conference Wednesday morning, a church kicked him off of their property...
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/07/31/hud-secretary-ben-carson-baltimore-tru...
139margd
Hours after a pair of scathing tweets from the president, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer ordered seven Navy Achievement Medals and three letters of commendation given to the prosecution team be rescinded. Unlawful command influence. Even worse, prosecutors put on notice that those who argue unpopular cases in spite of President will suffer. Spencer should have resigned rather than carry out President's tweets.
Legal Expert: Trump Order to Rescind Eddie Gallagher Prosecutors’ Medals Was ‘Highly Inappropriate’
Matt Naham | 10:59 am, August 1st, 2019
Legal experts were none too pleased with President Donald Trump’s Wednesday decision to order the Navy to rescind medals given to prosecutors who worked the high-profile Eddie Gallagher case.
Lt. Scott McDonald, Lt. Brian John, Lt. George Hageman, and an unnamed attorney whose name was redacted, all received Navy Achievement Medals for their “superb results” and “expert litigation” in the Gallagher trial.
According to Task & Purpose, Lt. McDonald was praised for “immediately litigating multiple motions alleging constitutional violations” after taking over as lead prosecutor on the case (Navy Cmdr. Christopher Czaplak had to be removed in June due to spying). Lt. McDonald “brilliantly cross-examined defense witnesses and expertly delivered the government’s case in rebuttal,” a filing said. Lt. John was praised for “preparing the government’s most challenging witnesses” and for displaying “remarkable resiliency” during a difficult trial. Lt. Hageman was praised for his “exceptional pretrial litigation support” and for his “responses to multiple complex defense motions relating to search and seizure issues and potential discovery violations.” The attorney whose named was redacted was a woman. She was credited for her “brilliant legal acumen while providing exceptional pretrial litigation support,” for spending “countless hours” on witness preparation and for her “mastery of discovery.”
In short, these prosecutors were each recognized for the way they handled things in the wake of the Cmdr. Czaplak incident, and for doing their jobs admirably while America watched the case with a keen eye.
President Donald Trump didn’t see it that way, and ordered that these medals be rescinded...
...Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck (Prof, U TX Law) | 4:02 PM - Jul 31, 2019:
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck
The message this sends to military prosecutors considering whether to pursue politically unpopular prosecutions, including for alleged war crimes committed by our servicemembers, is truly horrifying.
Military law has a ban on "unlawful command influence," but this is even worse...
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-expert-trump-order-to-rescind-eddie-g...
Legal Expert: Trump Order to Rescind Eddie Gallagher Prosecutors’ Medals Was ‘Highly Inappropriate’
Matt Naham | 10:59 am, August 1st, 2019
Legal experts were none too pleased with President Donald Trump’s Wednesday decision to order the Navy to rescind medals given to prosecutors who worked the high-profile Eddie Gallagher case.
Lt. Scott McDonald, Lt. Brian John, Lt. George Hageman, and an unnamed attorney whose name was redacted, all received Navy Achievement Medals for their “superb results” and “expert litigation” in the Gallagher trial.
According to Task & Purpose, Lt. McDonald was praised for “immediately litigating multiple motions alleging constitutional violations” after taking over as lead prosecutor on the case (Navy Cmdr. Christopher Czaplak had to be removed in June due to spying). Lt. McDonald “brilliantly cross-examined defense witnesses and expertly delivered the government’s case in rebuttal,” a filing said. Lt. John was praised for “preparing the government’s most challenging witnesses” and for displaying “remarkable resiliency” during a difficult trial. Lt. Hageman was praised for his “exceptional pretrial litigation support” and for his “responses to multiple complex defense motions relating to search and seizure issues and potential discovery violations.” The attorney whose named was redacted was a woman. She was credited for her “brilliant legal acumen while providing exceptional pretrial litigation support,” for spending “countless hours” on witness preparation and for her “mastery of discovery.”
In short, these prosecutors were each recognized for the way they handled things in the wake of the Cmdr. Czaplak incident, and for doing their jobs admirably while America watched the case with a keen eye.
President Donald Trump didn’t see it that way, and ordered that these medals be rescinded...
...Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck (Prof, U TX Law) | 4:02 PM - Jul 31, 2019:
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck
The message this sends to military prosecutors considering whether to pursue politically unpopular prosecutions, including for alleged war crimes committed by our servicemembers, is truly horrifying.
Military law has a ban on "unlawful command influence," but this is even worse...
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-expert-trump-order-to-rescind-eddie-g...
140margd
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 8:47 PM · Aug 7, 2019:
Here’s the House of Representatives suit for a judicial order to compel Don McGahn to testify so the House can decide whether to impeach President Trump for obstruction of justice. That order will have to be obeyed.
(link: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1614-judiciary-committee-v-mcgahn/b7de9e... )
___________________________________________________
Pondering Impeachment, House Sues Don McGahn, Ex-White House Counsel, for Testimony
Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage | Aug. 7, 2019
The Judiciary Committee hopes a federal judge will strike down the White House’s “absolute immunity” claims, clearing the way for testimony from key witnesses to the special counsel.
...Presidents from both parties have claimed that their executive powers meant that top aides were “absolutely immune” from Congress’s demands, meaning they would not even have to show up to face questions about their official duties.
A Federal District Court judge rejected a claim of absolute immunity in a similar case in 2008 after the House Judiciary Committee sued President George W. Bush’s former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, for defying a subpoena. But because that dispute never reached an appeals court, the ruling does not count as a controlling precedent. In 2014, the Obama Justice Department produced a memorandum saying it disagreed with that ruling.
In making its claim over Mr. McGahn, the White House pointed to that 2014 memorandum as support. But the Judiciary Committee’s filing said the executive branch claim had “no grounding in the Constitution, any statutes or case law and never has been accepted by any court.”
Absolute immunity is not the same thing as executive privilege, a more firmly established power that can shield conversations between the president and his advisers. To date, Mr. Trump has not invoked executive privilege with regard to Mr. McGahn...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/us/politics/don-mcgahn-subpoena.html
Here’s the House of Representatives suit for a judicial order to compel Don McGahn to testify so the House can decide whether to impeach President Trump for obstruction of justice. That order will have to be obeyed.
(link: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1614-judiciary-committee-v-mcgahn/b7de9e... )
___________________________________________________
Pondering Impeachment, House Sues Don McGahn, Ex-White House Counsel, for Testimony
Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage | Aug. 7, 2019
The Judiciary Committee hopes a federal judge will strike down the White House’s “absolute immunity” claims, clearing the way for testimony from key witnesses to the special counsel.
...Presidents from both parties have claimed that their executive powers meant that top aides were “absolutely immune” from Congress’s demands, meaning they would not even have to show up to face questions about their official duties.
A Federal District Court judge rejected a claim of absolute immunity in a similar case in 2008 after the House Judiciary Committee sued President George W. Bush’s former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, for defying a subpoena. But because that dispute never reached an appeals court, the ruling does not count as a controlling precedent. In 2014, the Obama Justice Department produced a memorandum saying it disagreed with that ruling.
In making its claim over Mr. McGahn, the White House pointed to that 2014 memorandum as support. But the Judiciary Committee’s filing said the executive branch claim had “no grounding in the Constitution, any statutes or case law and never has been accepted by any court.”
Absolute immunity is not the same thing as executive privilege, a more firmly established power that can shield conversations between the president and his advisers. To date, Mr. Trump has not invoked executive privilege with regard to Mr. McGahn...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/us/politics/don-mcgahn-subpoena.html
141margd
Trump circumvents Congress to block foreign aid
Rashaan Ayesh | Aug 7, 2019
The Trump administration has frozen at least $2 billion in foreign aid and ordered a review of the spending, which has already been approved by Congress....
Why it matters: President Trump is circumventing Congress in a move one Democratic aide told the NYT could "set a precedent for future administrations to ignore spending bills and eliminate spending obligations."
...Following a review by the Office of Management and Budget, money for projects deemed unimportant will be returned to the Treasury Department. Congress will have 45 days after that to either approve or block the move...
https://www.axios.com/trump-blocks-foreign-aid-approved-by-congress-3b62fdf9-a2e...
Rashaan Ayesh | Aug 7, 2019
The Trump administration has frozen at least $2 billion in foreign aid and ordered a review of the spending, which has already been approved by Congress....
Why it matters: President Trump is circumventing Congress in a move one Democratic aide told the NYT could "set a precedent for future administrations to ignore spending bills and eliminate spending obligations."
...Following a review by the Office of Management and Budget, money for projects deemed unimportant will be returned to the Treasury Department. Congress will have 45 days after that to either approve or block the move...
https://www.axios.com/trump-blocks-foreign-aid-approved-by-congress-3b62fdf9-a2e...
142StormRaven
141: This action by the administration probably violates 2 U.S.C. 681 - 688.
143margd
Using the office of the POTUS to block fact-seeking politicians in legislative branch with whom you disagree--surely that's impeachable?
Israel Denies Entry to Omar and Tlaib After Trump’s Call to Block Them
Isabel Kershner | Aug. 15, 2019
...Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 9:57 AM - Aug 15, 2019
It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!
Later on Thursday Israel’s Interior Ministry announced that Mr. Netanyahu had decided to deny entry to the two American lawmakers, on grounds of their “boycott activities against Israel” and in accordance with the country’s anti-boycott law
...The women had been planning to visit the West Bank cities of Hebron, Ramallah and Bethlehem, as well as Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, according to Ms. Ashrawi, including a visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque, a hotly contested and volatile holy site. Most of the delegation was expected to depart on Aug. 22, but Ms. Tlaib had been planning to stay to visit relatives in the West Bank.
No meetings had been planned with either Israeli or Palestinian officials, other than Ms. Ashrawi, who is also a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee. She said the organization she leads, Miftah, was co-sponsoring the visit.
The purpose of the visit, Ms. Ashrawi said, was to give the congresswomen a way “to engage with the Palestinian people directly and to see things on the ground.”...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/world/middleeast/trump-israel-omar-tlaib.html
Israel Denies Entry to Omar and Tlaib After Trump’s Call to Block Them
Isabel Kershner | Aug. 15, 2019
...Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 9:57 AM - Aug 15, 2019
It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!
Later on Thursday Israel’s Interior Ministry announced that Mr. Netanyahu had decided to deny entry to the two American lawmakers, on grounds of their “boycott activities against Israel” and in accordance with the country’s anti-boycott law
...The women had been planning to visit the West Bank cities of Hebron, Ramallah and Bethlehem, as well as Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, according to Ms. Ashrawi, including a visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque, a hotly contested and volatile holy site. Most of the delegation was expected to depart on Aug. 22, but Ms. Tlaib had been planning to stay to visit relatives in the West Bank.
No meetings had been planned with either Israeli or Palestinian officials, other than Ms. Ashrawi, who is also a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee. She said the organization she leads, Miftah, was co-sponsoring the visit.
The purpose of the visit, Ms. Ashrawi said, was to give the congresswomen a way “to engage with the Palestinian people directly and to see things on the ground.”...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/world/middleeast/trump-israel-omar-tlaib.html
144margd
How can such abuse of power not be a high crime/misdemeanor? What a boor.
Governing by grievance, Trump wields official powers against political enemies
Toluse Olorunnipa | August 15
President Trump has used the powers of the presidency to target critics and perceived enemies.
...pressuring the Israeli government to bar entry by two members of Congress
...grounded a military jet set for use by the Democratic House speaker
...yanked a security clearance from a former CIA director critical of him
...threatened to withhold disaster aid from states led by Democrats (California fire, Puerto Rico hurricanes)
...pushed to reopen a criminal investigation targeting Hillary Clinton
...publicly called for federal action to punish technology and media companies he views as biased against him (including Google, Twitter, Amazon, CNN and Facebook)
...“It’s both a sign of deep insecurity on his part and also just a litany of abuse of power,” (Matthew Dallek, a political historian who teaches at George Washington University) said. “I don’t think anyone really has done it as consistently or as viciously as Trump has. No one has used the power of the bully pulpit in such a public way...He’s willing to break any norm and abuse any power to cater to his most hard-right supporters”
...several instances in which Trump sought to pressure the Department of Justice to pursue a criminal investigation into his 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, for her use of a private email server
...used his (exclusive authority to declassify government records) last year to give Republicans access to secret documents related to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
...voiced support for ousting Justice Department officials (not seen as politically loyal) who were involved in the Russia investigation (McCabe)...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/governing-by-grievance-trump-wields-offi...
Governing by grievance, Trump wields official powers against political enemies
Toluse Olorunnipa | August 15
President Trump has used the powers of the presidency to target critics and perceived enemies.
...pressuring the Israeli government to bar entry by two members of Congress
...grounded a military jet set for use by the Democratic House speaker
...yanked a security clearance from a former CIA director critical of him
...threatened to withhold disaster aid from states led by Democrats (California fire, Puerto Rico hurricanes)
...pushed to reopen a criminal investigation targeting Hillary Clinton
...publicly called for federal action to punish technology and media companies he views as biased against him (including Google, Twitter, Amazon, CNN and Facebook)
...“It’s both a sign of deep insecurity on his part and also just a litany of abuse of power,” (Matthew Dallek, a political historian who teaches at George Washington University) said. “I don’t think anyone really has done it as consistently or as viciously as Trump has. No one has used the power of the bully pulpit in such a public way...He’s willing to break any norm and abuse any power to cater to his most hard-right supporters”
...several instances in which Trump sought to pressure the Department of Justice to pursue a criminal investigation into his 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, for her use of a private email server
...used his (exclusive authority to declassify government records) last year to give Republicans access to secret documents related to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
...voiced support for ousting Justice Department officials (not seen as politically loyal) who were involved in the Russia investigation (McCabe)...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/governing-by-grievance-trump-wields-offi...
145margd
Um, that oath you took in January 2017--you know: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 1:17 PM · Aug 21, 2019:
Talking about serving more than two terms suddenly isn't a joking matter for Trump anymore.
"In six years -- or maybe 10 or maybe 14, right? -- in six years, when I'm not here, the New York Times goes out of business very quickly," he says, deadpan.
1:22
________________________________________
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 1:33 PM · Aug 21, 2019:
Trump says he's "very seriously" looking at trying to change the Constitution by executive order.
"We're looking at that very seriously -- birthright citizenship. Where you have a baby on our land ... 'congratulations the baby is now a US citizen' ... it's, frankly, ridiculous."
0:27
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 1:17 PM · Aug 21, 2019:
Talking about serving more than two terms suddenly isn't a joking matter for Trump anymore.
"In six years -- or maybe 10 or maybe 14, right? -- in six years, when I'm not here, the New York Times goes out of business very quickly," he says, deadpan.
1:22
________________________________________
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 1:33 PM · Aug 21, 2019:
Trump says he's "very seriously" looking at trying to change the Constitution by executive order.
"We're looking at that very seriously -- birthright citizenship. Where you have a baby on our land ... 'congratulations the baby is now a US citizen' ... it's, frankly, ridiculous."
0:27
146margd
Jack Goldsmith @jacklgoldsmith | 14h (8/24/2019)
I'm surprised so many are surprised about the delegated authority Congress gave POTUS in IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act). The entire global trade war—practically every move Trump has made—was an exercise of power that the Constitution gave to Congress but that Congress gave to POTUS, with few constraints.
Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes | 56m (8/25/2019)
Jack’s point here is right and also wise. In a wide variety of areas, Congress has given away its power to the President with sweeping authorizations. Such laws assume a president whose oath of office means something and whose judgment is sound. It’s time to rethink those laws.
I'm surprised so many are surprised about the delegated authority Congress gave POTUS in IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act). The entire global trade war—practically every move Trump has made—was an exercise of power that the Constitution gave to Congress but that Congress gave to POTUS, with few constraints.
Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes | 56m (8/25/2019)
Jack’s point here is right and also wise. In a wide variety of areas, Congress has given away its power to the President with sweeping authorizations. Such laws assume a president whose oath of office means something and whose judgment is sound. It’s time to rethink those laws.
147margd
Pelosi Statement on Trump Administration Stealing Money from Disaster Relief to Fund Cruel Family Incarceration Policy
August 28, 2019
San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement on the Trump Administration’s attempt to divert money from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund to fund its family incarceration policy:
“The President’s brazen assault on the Congress’s most fundamental Constitutional power, the power of the purse, is cruel, deeply dangerous and made in bad faith.
“Stealing from appropriated funds is always unacceptable, but to pick the pockets of disaster relief funding in order to fund an appalling, inhumane family incarceration plan is staggering – and to do so on the eve of hurricane season is stunningly reckless.
“I urge the Administration to swiftly reconsider this deeply irresponsible action, and to begin to work in good faith with Congress so that we can deliver progress For The People.”
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/82719/
_________________________________________________________________
As Puerto Rico Braces For Storm, DHS, FEMA To Move $271 Million To Border Operations
Claudia Grisales | August 27, 20198:12 PM ET
As a major storm heads for Puerto Rico, the Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency said Tuesday they will move $271 million in funds to support President Trump's border enforcement efforts.
The Department of Homeland Security said it will transfer the emergency funds — including $155 million from FEMA's disaster relief fund — to support new Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds as well as facilities for related court cases...
In a July notification to Congress about the transfer*, DHS said the $155 million comes from recoveries of prior year funds and that "absent significant new catastrophic events" the department believes the fund will still have enough money to operate.
Congressional Democrats slammed the move on Tuesday, which comes at the peak of hurricane season and as Tropical Storm Dorian was poised to reach hurricane levels...
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/27/754838143/as-puerto-rico-braces-for-storm-dhs-fem...
* 15 p DHS notification to Congress, dated July 26, 2019, effective after 30 days:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6354580-DHS-FY-2019-Southwest-Border-Eme...
August 28, 2019
San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement on the Trump Administration’s attempt to divert money from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund to fund its family incarceration policy:
“The President’s brazen assault on the Congress’s most fundamental Constitutional power, the power of the purse, is cruel, deeply dangerous and made in bad faith.
“Stealing from appropriated funds is always unacceptable, but to pick the pockets of disaster relief funding in order to fund an appalling, inhumane family incarceration plan is staggering – and to do so on the eve of hurricane season is stunningly reckless.
“I urge the Administration to swiftly reconsider this deeply irresponsible action, and to begin to work in good faith with Congress so that we can deliver progress For The People.”
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/82719/
_________________________________________________________________
As Puerto Rico Braces For Storm, DHS, FEMA To Move $271 Million To Border Operations
Claudia Grisales | August 27, 20198:12 PM ET
As a major storm heads for Puerto Rico, the Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency said Tuesday they will move $271 million in funds to support President Trump's border enforcement efforts.
The Department of Homeland Security said it will transfer the emergency funds — including $155 million from FEMA's disaster relief fund — to support new Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds as well as facilities for related court cases...
In a July notification to Congress about the transfer*, DHS said the $155 million comes from recoveries of prior year funds and that "absent significant new catastrophic events" the department believes the fund will still have enough money to operate.
Congressional Democrats slammed the move on Tuesday, which comes at the peak of hurricane season and as Tropical Storm Dorian was poised to reach hurricane levels...
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/27/754838143/as-puerto-rico-braces-for-storm-dhs-fem...
* 15 p DHS notification to Congress, dated July 26, 2019, effective after 30 days:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6354580-DHS-FY-2019-Southwest-Border-Eme...
148margd
Trump Exposes the Peril of Presidential Power Grabs
Richard North Patterson | August 28, 2019
Congress has been yielding lawmaking authority for almost a century. But never before has a president abused the power of his office quite like this.
...of licensing any president to exceed his writ.
The Framers sought to prevent this. In theory, Article I reposes primacy in Congress, granting it the power to craft budgets, confirm or reject key executive appointments, override presidential vetoes, and even remove the chief executive. James Madison assumed that “in Republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Emblematically, he emphasized that because “the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it … the Constitution has accordingly … vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
By design, the charter of the president in Article II was sparing, chiefly to command the armed forces and sign or veto legislation. Having shucked off King George so recently, the Framers shrank from creating a quasi-monarch.
Time passes; the world encroaches. Social contexts change, and so do concepts of governance. Since the beginning of the 20th century, executive power has slipped its original constitutional moorings. This happened most dramatically in the exercise of military power: lacking Congress’s power to declare war, presidents started waging war without declaring it in the name of national security...
...It is one thing to argue that the Commerce Clause warrants expansive federal legislation; it’s another to suggest that a president is inherently entitled to define his own powers. Instances of such unilateral executive action include, at least arguably, FDR’s internment camps for Japanese-Americans; Richard Nixon’s wage and price controls; George W. Bush’s executive order expanding access to federal grants for faith-based charities; Barack Obama’s executive order protecting Dreamers; and Trump’s unauthorized reallocation of monies appropriated to the military to build his vaunted wall—invoking the pretext of a “national emergency.”...
...As this misappropriation of executive power proceeds...so does the degradation of our democracy. Our president is a morally debased authoritarian-in-waiting who shreds legal and constitutional constraints. His party’s representatives in Congress have abandoned their constitutional duty to curb him. Its partisan Supreme Court majority may well emulate this fatal abdication.
As the institutions of democracy fail, so does the popular understanding of what democracy is—and the means or will to uphold it. Any student of history has seen this trajectory before, and knows too well where it ends.
Before it’s too late, enough.
https://thebulwark.com/trump-exposes-the-peril-of-presidential-power-grabs/
Richard North Patterson | August 28, 2019
Congress has been yielding lawmaking authority for almost a century. But never before has a president abused the power of his office quite like this.
...of licensing any president to exceed his writ.
The Framers sought to prevent this. In theory, Article I reposes primacy in Congress, granting it the power to craft budgets, confirm or reject key executive appointments, override presidential vetoes, and even remove the chief executive. James Madison assumed that “in Republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Emblematically, he emphasized that because “the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it … the Constitution has accordingly … vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
By design, the charter of the president in Article II was sparing, chiefly to command the armed forces and sign or veto legislation. Having shucked off King George so recently, the Framers shrank from creating a quasi-monarch.
Time passes; the world encroaches. Social contexts change, and so do concepts of governance. Since the beginning of the 20th century, executive power has slipped its original constitutional moorings. This happened most dramatically in the exercise of military power: lacking Congress’s power to declare war, presidents started waging war without declaring it in the name of national security...
...It is one thing to argue that the Commerce Clause warrants expansive federal legislation; it’s another to suggest that a president is inherently entitled to define his own powers. Instances of such unilateral executive action include, at least arguably, FDR’s internment camps for Japanese-Americans; Richard Nixon’s wage and price controls; George W. Bush’s executive order expanding access to federal grants for faith-based charities; Barack Obama’s executive order protecting Dreamers; and Trump’s unauthorized reallocation of monies appropriated to the military to build his vaunted wall—invoking the pretext of a “national emergency.”...
...As this misappropriation of executive power proceeds...so does the degradation of our democracy. Our president is a morally debased authoritarian-in-waiting who shreds legal and constitutional constraints. His party’s representatives in Congress have abandoned their constitutional duty to curb him. Its partisan Supreme Court majority may well emulate this fatal abdication.
As the institutions of democracy fail, so does the popular understanding of what democracy is—and the means or will to uphold it. Any student of history has seen this trajectory before, and knows too well where it ends.
Before it’s too late, enough.
https://thebulwark.com/trump-exposes-the-peril-of-presidential-power-grabs/
149margd
David Frum @davidfrum | 9:45 AM · Aug 30, 2019:
The president this morning tweeted a) a demand that a critic be criminally prosecuted for a non-criminal act and b) a demand that his term of office be unconstitutionally extended.
So ... got any interesting plans for the long weekend?
________________________________________________________________
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | ~9:15 am - 8/30/2019
Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Officer(Dem): “In 2016 we had a Coup. We have to take Comey and others to task. Makes no sense not to prosecute him. Comey got a book deal. I fear for my Country. He tried to kneecap our duly elected president, and there are no consequences.” fox&Fs
The fact that James Comey was not prosecuted for the absolutely horrible things he did just shows how fair and reasonable Attorney General Bill Barr is. So many people and experts that I have watched and read would have taken an entirely different course. Comey got Lucky!
The disastrous IG Report on James Comey shows, in the strongest of terms, how unfairly I, and tens of millions of great people who support me, were treated. Our rights and liberties were illegally stripped away by this dishonest fool. We should be given our stolen time back?
ETA______________________________________________________________
James Comey has been cleared (mostly). But Republicans' ruthless power grab continues
Former FBI director's tangled saga is now over — but Republicans still yearn for hearings and show trials
Heather Digby Parton | August 30, 2019
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/30/james-comey-has-been-cleared-mostly-but-republi...
The president this morning tweeted a) a demand that a critic be criminally prosecuted for a non-criminal act and b) a demand that his term of office be unconstitutionally extended.
So ... got any interesting plans for the long weekend?
________________________________________________________________
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | ~9:15 am - 8/30/2019
Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Officer(Dem): “In 2016 we had a Coup. We have to take Comey and others to task. Makes no sense not to prosecute him. Comey got a book deal. I fear for my Country. He tried to kneecap our duly elected president, and there are no consequences.” fox&Fs
The fact that James Comey was not prosecuted for the absolutely horrible things he did just shows how fair and reasonable Attorney General Bill Barr is. So many people and experts that I have watched and read would have taken an entirely different course. Comey got Lucky!
The disastrous IG Report on James Comey shows, in the strongest of terms, how unfairly I, and tens of millions of great people who support me, were treated. Our rights and liberties were illegally stripped away by this dishonest fool. We should be given our stolen time back?
ETA______________________________________________________________
James Comey has been cleared (mostly). But Republicans' ruthless power grab continues
Former FBI director's tangled saga is now over — but Republicans still yearn for hearings and show trials
Heather Digby Parton | August 30, 2019
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/30/james-comey-has-been-cleared-mostly-but-republi...
150margd
A Cruel Parody of Antitrust Enforcement
The Justice Department is roughing up Mr. Trump’s political enemies and threatening the environment.
(NYT's) Editorial Board | Sept. 6, 2019
President Trump’s Justice Department — for it is increasingly clear that the department has been reduced to an arm of the White House — has opened an antitrust investigation of four auto companies that had the temerity to defy the president by voluntarily agreeing to reduce auto emissions below the level required by current federal law.
The investigation is an act of bullying, plain and simple: a nakedly political abuse of authority.
The department is supposed to prevent companies from acting in their own interest at the expense of the public. The four automakers (Ford, BMW North America, Volkswagen Group of America and Honda), by contrast, are acting in the public interest.
...Mr. Trump reacted to the deal with predictable fury. The administration denounced it as a “P.R. stunt,” and threatened to end California’s longstanding authority to set its own tougher fuel efficiency standards — an attempt that would surely end up in court.
Now the administration has gone further, firing a shot across the bows of the automakers that signed the deal, and of those that might. The Times reported the German government warned Mercedes-Benz not to join the California agreement after learning of the federal investigation.
Antitrust law grants the government broad authority to police anticompetitive practices, and the Justice Department has dressed up its actions with the fig leaf that the companies may have colluded by collectively agreeing to the tougher standards, which could result in higher prices for new cars and light trucks.
...The investigation is particularly striking because the department has shown little interest in preventing corporations from engaging in actual anticompetitive behavior. This summer, for example, the department blessed T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint, a deal likely to harm mobile phone consumers and workers, and to impede innovation...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/opinion/trump-antitrust-auto-emissions.html
The Justice Department is roughing up Mr. Trump’s political enemies and threatening the environment.
(NYT's) Editorial Board | Sept. 6, 2019
President Trump’s Justice Department — for it is increasingly clear that the department has been reduced to an arm of the White House — has opened an antitrust investigation of four auto companies that had the temerity to defy the president by voluntarily agreeing to reduce auto emissions below the level required by current federal law.
The investigation is an act of bullying, plain and simple: a nakedly political abuse of authority.
The department is supposed to prevent companies from acting in their own interest at the expense of the public. The four automakers (Ford, BMW North America, Volkswagen Group of America and Honda), by contrast, are acting in the public interest.
...Mr. Trump reacted to the deal with predictable fury. The administration denounced it as a “P.R. stunt,” and threatened to end California’s longstanding authority to set its own tougher fuel efficiency standards — an attempt that would surely end up in court.
Now the administration has gone further, firing a shot across the bows of the automakers that signed the deal, and of those that might. The Times reported the German government warned Mercedes-Benz not to join the California agreement after learning of the federal investigation.
Antitrust law grants the government broad authority to police anticompetitive practices, and the Justice Department has dressed up its actions with the fig leaf that the companies may have colluded by collectively agreeing to the tougher standards, which could result in higher prices for new cars and light trucks.
...The investigation is particularly striking because the department has shown little interest in preventing corporations from engaging in actual anticompetitive behavior. This summer, for example, the department blessed T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint, a deal likely to harm mobile phone consumers and workers, and to impede innovation...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/opinion/trump-antitrust-auto-emissions.html
151margd
Brad Heath @bradheath USA Today | 8:11 PM · Sep 6, 2019:
Go to tweet at https://twitter.com/bradheath to read excerpt of DOJ document.
DOJ says only the executive branch can decide whether to go to court to enforce Congressional subpoenas served on the executive branch.
The Trump administration told a federal court today that House can't use the courts to enforce its subpoenas, in this case for President Trump's tax returns. Instead, it says that if Congress wants to make the administration comply, it should ask DOJ to file contempt charges.
Go to tweet at https://twitter.com/bradheath to read excerpt of DOJ document.
DOJ says only the executive branch can decide whether to go to court to enforce Congressional subpoenas served on the executive branch.
The Trump administration told a federal court today that House can't use the courts to enforce its subpoenas, in this case for President Trump's tax returns. Instead, it says that if Congress wants to make the administration comply, it should ask DOJ to file contempt charges.
Este tema fue continuado por Constitution and Norms under Attack: Military, Judiciary, Administration, Congress, International 2.
