Constitution and Norms under Attack: Military, Judiciary, Administration, Congress, International 2
Esto es una continuación del tema 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 3.
CharlasPro and Con
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
1margd
Corruption normalized:
Checking In at Trump Hotels, for Kinship (and Maybe Some Sway)
Eric Lipton and Annie Karni | Sept. 7, 2019
...To ethics lawyers, the most extraordinary aspect of the daily merging of President Trump’s official duties and his commercial interests is that it has now become almost routine...
...Mr. Trump, they said, spends more time talking about his properties in private than he does in public, and even as president, remains intimately involved with club minutiae, like knowing all the names on his Mar-a-Lago membership roll.
Anthony Scaramucci...said there do not need to be any marching orders from Mr. Trump or his inner circle for people to understand the potential benefits of being seen (at Trump hotel in Washington).
...“It reflects the normalization of corruption — this is just how business works in Trump’s Washington, D.C.,” said Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit ethics group. “We have witnessed a stunning degradation of ethical norms.”
...Ethics lawyers said that even if the White House and the president were not overtly pressuring individuals seeking help from the federal government to visit a Trump brand, the pattern was still troubling.
...The visits that have drawn perhaps the most scrutiny are those by officials of foreign governments. Their frequency has led to allegations that Mr. Trump is violating the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting foreign government funds...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/us/politics/trump-hotel.html
Checking In at Trump Hotels, for Kinship (and Maybe Some Sway)
Eric Lipton and Annie Karni | Sept. 7, 2019
...To ethics lawyers, the most extraordinary aspect of the daily merging of President Trump’s official duties and his commercial interests is that it has now become almost routine...
...Mr. Trump, they said, spends more time talking about his properties in private than he does in public, and even as president, remains intimately involved with club minutiae, like knowing all the names on his Mar-a-Lago membership roll.
Anthony Scaramucci...said there do not need to be any marching orders from Mr. Trump or his inner circle for people to understand the potential benefits of being seen (at Trump hotel in Washington).
...“It reflects the normalization of corruption — this is just how business works in Trump’s Washington, D.C.,” said Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit ethics group. “We have witnessed a stunning degradation of ethical norms.”
...Ethics lawyers said that even if the White House and the president were not overtly pressuring individuals seeking help from the federal government to visit a Trump brand, the pattern was still troubling.
...The visits that have drawn perhaps the most scrutiny are those by officials of foreign governments. Their frequency has led to allegations that Mr. Trump is violating the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting foreign government funds...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/us/politics/trump-hotel.html
2John5918
>1 margd:
Trump Turnberry: US Air Force to review Scotland resort stays (BBC)
The US Air Force has ordered a review of its guidance on overnight accommodation for flight crews.
The move follows revelations that some have been staying at one of President Donald Trump's Scottish golf resorts.
There has been an increase in the number of US military flights stopping at Prestwick Airport, Scotland, near the resort, since he took office.
A US Congressional committee is investigating Mr Trump for a potential conflict of interest...
Trump Turnberry: US Air Force to review Scotland resort stays (BBC)
The US Air Force has ordered a review of its guidance on overnight accommodation for flight crews.
The move follows revelations that some have been staying at one of President Donald Trump's Scottish golf resorts.
There has been an increase in the number of US military flights stopping at Prestwick Airport, Scotland, near the resort, since he took office.
A US Congressional committee is investigating Mr Trump for a potential conflict of interest...
3margd
Loose lips sink ships...
Exclusive: US extracted top spy from inside Russia in 2017
Jim Sciutto | September 09, 2019
Washington(CNN) In a previously undisclosed secret mission in 2017, the United States successfully extracted from Russia one of its highest-level covert sources inside the Russian government, multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge told CNN.
A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven, in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.
The decision to carry out the extraction occurred soon after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office in which Trump discussed highly classified intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak. The intelligence, concerning ISIS in Syria, had been provided by Israel...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html
________________________________________________________________
In a Tweet Taunting Iran, Trump Releases a (Satellite) Image Thought to Be Classified
David E. Sanger and William J. Broad | Aug. 30, 2019
...it was Mr. Trump’s release of a satellite photograph that attracted the most discussion among intelligence officials. Several former officials noted that the upper left-hand corner, where the level of classification of the photograph would normally be denoted, was blacked out before Mr. Trump tweeted the image. That suggested a rushed effort by the United States to declassify it, presumably at Mr. Trump’s command. A glare on the photograph suggested someone may have used a cellphone to take a picture of the image as it was displayed on a tablet computer, which is how classified images are often shown to the president during security briefings.
“You can bet every adversary is going to school on what’s been exposed,” James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said in an email. “I can’t see what the point was, other than to make fun of the Iranians.”
Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the image posted by Mr. Trump looked “far better than any commercial imagery” that has been released about the launch. Revealing the abilities of American satellite surveillance, he argued, does not advance American interests...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/world/middleeast/trump-iran-missile-explosion...
Exclusive: US extracted top spy from inside Russia in 2017
Jim Sciutto | September 09, 2019
Washington(CNN) In a previously undisclosed secret mission in 2017, the United States successfully extracted from Russia one of its highest-level covert sources inside the Russian government, multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge told CNN.
A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven, in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.
The decision to carry out the extraction occurred soon after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office in which Trump discussed highly classified intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak. The intelligence, concerning ISIS in Syria, had been provided by Israel...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html
________________________________________________________________
In a Tweet Taunting Iran, Trump Releases a (Satellite) Image Thought to Be Classified
David E. Sanger and William J. Broad | Aug. 30, 2019
...it was Mr. Trump’s release of a satellite photograph that attracted the most discussion among intelligence officials. Several former officials noted that the upper left-hand corner, where the level of classification of the photograph would normally be denoted, was blacked out before Mr. Trump tweeted the image. That suggested a rushed effort by the United States to declassify it, presumably at Mr. Trump’s command. A glare on the photograph suggested someone may have used a cellphone to take a picture of the image as it was displayed on a tablet computer, which is how classified images are often shown to the president during security briefings.
“You can bet every adversary is going to school on what’s been exposed,” James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said in an email. “I can’t see what the point was, other than to make fun of the Iranians.”
Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the image posted by Mr. Trump looked “far better than any commercial imagery” that has been released about the launch. Revealing the abilities of American satellite surveillance, he argued, does not advance American interests...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/world/middleeast/trump-iran-missile-explosion...
4margd
The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy
Human brains aren’t built for self-rule, says Shawn Rosenberg. That’s more evident than ever.
RICK SHENKMAN | September 08, 2019
...Shawn Rosenberg (professor, U California Irvine)
...Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy. As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists.
His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”
...His theory is that over the next few decades, the number of large Western-style democracies around the globe will continue to shrink, and those that remain will become shells of themselves. Taking democracy’s place, Rosenberg says, will be right-wing populist governments that offer voters simple answers to complicated questions.
And therein lies the core of his argument: Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who don’t look like them. It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false. It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.
Unfortunately, evolution did not favor the exercise of these qualities in the context of a modern mass democracy. Citing reams of psychological research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight....
...He has concluded that the reason for right-wing populists’ recent success is that “elites” are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.
...The irony is that more democracy—ushered in by social media and the Internet, where information flows more freely than ever before—is what has unmoored our politics, and is leading us towards authoritarianism.
...Compared with the harsh demands made by democracy, which requires a tolerance for compromise and diversity, right-wing populism is like cotton candy. Whereas democracy requires us to accept the fact that we have to share our country with people who think and look differently than we do, right-wing populism offers a quick sugar high. Forget political correctness. You can feel exactly the way you really want about people who belong to other tribes.
Right-wing populists don’t have to make much sense....
And unlike democracy, which makes many demands, the populists make just one. They insist that people be loyal...
...when it comes to the U.S., the problem might be larger than one man. Liberals have been praying for the end of the Trump presidency, but if Rosenberg is right, democracy will remain under threat no matter who is in power.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228...
Human brains aren’t built for self-rule, says Shawn Rosenberg. That’s more evident than ever.
RICK SHENKMAN | September 08, 2019
...Shawn Rosenberg (professor, U California Irvine)
...Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy. As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists.
His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”
...His theory is that over the next few decades, the number of large Western-style democracies around the globe will continue to shrink, and those that remain will become shells of themselves. Taking democracy’s place, Rosenberg says, will be right-wing populist governments that offer voters simple answers to complicated questions.
And therein lies the core of his argument: Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who don’t look like them. It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false. It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.
Unfortunately, evolution did not favor the exercise of these qualities in the context of a modern mass democracy. Citing reams of psychological research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight....
...He has concluded that the reason for right-wing populists’ recent success is that “elites” are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.
...The irony is that more democracy—ushered in by social media and the Internet, where information flows more freely than ever before—is what has unmoored our politics, and is leading us towards authoritarianism.
...Compared with the harsh demands made by democracy, which requires a tolerance for compromise and diversity, right-wing populism is like cotton candy. Whereas democracy requires us to accept the fact that we have to share our country with people who think and look differently than we do, right-wing populism offers a quick sugar high. Forget political correctness. You can feel exactly the way you really want about people who belong to other tribes.
Right-wing populists don’t have to make much sense....
And unlike democracy, which makes many demands, the populists make just one. They insist that people be loyal...
...when it comes to the U.S., the problem might be larger than one man. Liberals have been praying for the end of the Trump presidency, but if Rosenberg is right, democracy will remain under threat no matter who is in power.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228...
5margd
How to End Forever Wars
Michael J. Glennon, Charles Tiefer | Monday, September 9, 2019
...If Congress is to reclaim its war power in the new era of massive omnibus spending bills, it must be through a device that not only is legally effective but also amplifies existing political will.
Such a tool is available. The solution is a simple parliamentary device that can be adopted by the House of Representatives, acting alone. Making it work would require one thing: the active support of the House leadership.
The measure would amend the internal rules of the House to cause a point of order to lie against any measure that makes available appropriated funds to carry out any military operation that the House has previously found, by simple resolution, requires authorization by Congress. Call the device a parliamentary war-powers lockbox: The House would in effect lock its doors to any measure that contains any money for a designated military operation. A majority of House members put the lock in place, and any individual member can keep the lock closed.
...Here’s an example of how it could have worked in connection with the military action in Yemen: Earlier this year Congress passed a bill that would have required President Trump to remove the U.S. armed forces from hostilities in Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress. The president vetoed it and the Senate refused to override Trump’s veto, so the ban did not become law.
A lockbox could have changed that outcome. Had the procedure then been in effect, the House could have adopted a simple resolution finding that U.S. military operations in Yemen were unlawful without congressional approval. (A simple House resolution takes effect upon the approval of a House majority. No Senate concurrence is required, nor is a presidential veto possible.) Once that triggering resolution had been adopted, any measure that came to the House floor that makes available appropriated funds for the Yemen operations would be subject to a point of order by any House member. The presiding officer would sustain the point of order, meaning that the House would thereafter be prevented from considering the funding measure—unless the Yemen ban were included...
...Congress’s war and appropriations powers have atrophied for many reasons, and no single legislative measure can fully and finally restore either. But the need for a more active congressional role is clear. In the past decade alone, presidents have ordered military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Niger—all, save Afghanistan, without congressional authorization. Iran might be next, or North Korea. Funds for these actions are constitutionally required to be approved by a majority of each House of Congress. “Procedure,” the late Judge Harold Leventhal said, “is the first outpost of the law.” A first step in revivifying the constitutionally mandated procedure for going to war is to avoid funding wars that do not honor that procedure. The House of Representatives can do so by exercising its exclusive authority over its internal procedure....
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-end-forever-wars
Michael J. Glennon, Charles Tiefer | Monday, September 9, 2019
...If Congress is to reclaim its war power in the new era of massive omnibus spending bills, it must be through a device that not only is legally effective but also amplifies existing political will.
Such a tool is available. The solution is a simple parliamentary device that can be adopted by the House of Representatives, acting alone. Making it work would require one thing: the active support of the House leadership.
The measure would amend the internal rules of the House to cause a point of order to lie against any measure that makes available appropriated funds to carry out any military operation that the House has previously found, by simple resolution, requires authorization by Congress. Call the device a parliamentary war-powers lockbox: The House would in effect lock its doors to any measure that contains any money for a designated military operation. A majority of House members put the lock in place, and any individual member can keep the lock closed.
...Here’s an example of how it could have worked in connection with the military action in Yemen: Earlier this year Congress passed a bill that would have required President Trump to remove the U.S. armed forces from hostilities in Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress. The president vetoed it and the Senate refused to override Trump’s veto, so the ban did not become law.
A lockbox could have changed that outcome. Had the procedure then been in effect, the House could have adopted a simple resolution finding that U.S. military operations in Yemen were unlawful without congressional approval. (A simple House resolution takes effect upon the approval of a House majority. No Senate concurrence is required, nor is a presidential veto possible.) Once that triggering resolution had been adopted, any measure that came to the House floor that makes available appropriated funds for the Yemen operations would be subject to a point of order by any House member. The presiding officer would sustain the point of order, meaning that the House would thereafter be prevented from considering the funding measure—unless the Yemen ban were included...
...Congress’s war and appropriations powers have atrophied for many reasons, and no single legislative measure can fully and finally restore either. But the need for a more active congressional role is clear. In the past decade alone, presidents have ordered military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Niger—all, save Afghanistan, without congressional authorization. Iran might be next, or North Korea. Funds for these actions are constitutionally required to be approved by a majority of each House of Congress. “Procedure,” the late Judge Harold Leventhal said, “is the first outpost of the law.” A first step in revivifying the constitutionally mandated procedure for going to war is to avoid funding wars that do not honor that procedure. The House of Representatives can do so by exercising its exclusive authority over its internal procedure....
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-end-forever-wars
6margd
Amy Siskind @Amy_Siskind (Politico) | 9/9/2019:
These stories about Trump never leaving office are now coming out more than once a week. He has normalized it. He is not joking either folks. He is consolidating power and does not plan to leave. Believe what he is repeatedly saying!
Trump again jokes about extending his term past 2024
ARREN KIMBEL-SANNIT | 09/09/2019
...President Donald Trump (and) FIFA President Gianni Infantino...were fielding questions from reporters outside of the White House after meeting in part about gender equity in soccer — or how to make women's soccer "even better and more equitable, etcetera, etcetera," as Trump put it — when the president jested about extending his term to 2026, the year the FIFA World Cup will take place in North America.
"Gianni, we're going to have to extend my second term because 2026 — I'm going to have to extend it for a couple of years. I don't think any of you would have a problem with that," he continued, apparently addressing the press corps assembled outside of the White House.
The prospect of Trump extending his presidency beyond two terms is a frequent refrain among the president and his boosters...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/09/trump-jokes-extended-term-2024-1486897
These stories about Trump never leaving office are now coming out more than once a week. He has normalized it. He is not joking either folks. He is consolidating power and does not plan to leave. Believe what he is repeatedly saying!
Trump again jokes about extending his term past 2024
ARREN KIMBEL-SANNIT | 09/09/2019
...President Donald Trump (and) FIFA President Gianni Infantino...were fielding questions from reporters outside of the White House after meeting in part about gender equity in soccer — or how to make women's soccer "even better and more equitable, etcetera, etcetera," as Trump put it — when the president jested about extending his term to 2026, the year the FIFA World Cup will take place in North America.
"Gianni, we're going to have to extend my second term because 2026 — I'm going to have to extend it for a couple of years. I don't think any of you would have a problem with that," he continued, apparently addressing the press corps assembled outside of the White House.
The prospect of Trump extending his presidency beyond two terms is a frequent refrain among the president and his boosters...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/09/trump-jokes-extended-term-2024-1486897
7jjwilson61
>4 margd: ...Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy.
The problem with this is that those "elites" guiding the policies of the US were guiding them in ways that helped their own class and punished the working class. In my opinion they were deserving to be side-lined, however unfortunate their replacement was.
The problem with this is that those "elites" guiding the policies of the US were guiding them in ways that helped their own class and punished the working class. In my opinion they were deserving to be side-lined, however unfortunate their replacement was.
8margd
>7 jjwilson61: Yeah, and it was a British elite that put the question of Brexit in front of the people...
9margd
Daniel Jacobson @Dan_F_Jacobson (Obama wH lawyer)| 7:47 PM · Sep 16, 2019:
The White House has no legal authority to "direct" a private citizen who has never served in the Administration to refuse to answer any questions from Congress about anything. This is lawless.
Katherine Faulders @KFaulders (ABC News)| 7:20 PM · Sep 16, 2019:
White House is also limiting @CLewandowski’s testimony. “The White House has directed Mr. Lewandowski not to provide information about such communications beyond the information provided in the portions of the Mueller Report that have already been disclosed to the Committee.”
Image ( https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1173738335787003905/photo/1 )
The White House has no legal authority to "direct" a private citizen who has never served in the Administration to refuse to answer any questions from Congress about anything. This is lawless.
Katherine Faulders @KFaulders (ABC News)| 7:20 PM · Sep 16, 2019:
White House is also limiting @CLewandowski’s testimony. “The White House has directed Mr. Lewandowski not to provide information about such communications beyond the information provided in the portions of the Mueller Report that have already been disclosed to the Committee.”
Image ( https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1173738335787003905/photo/1 )
10margd
Like Trump cares about pollution...using government agency to go after yet another of Trump's political enemies, the defenseless, to please the base and fill his pockets:
Trump says EPA will cite San Francisco for pollution stemming from homelessness issues
Brett Samuels - 09/19/19
...Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump again took aim at Los Angeles and San Francisco over the volume of homeless people in each city. But he escalated his rhetoric, saying an announcement citing San Francisco for environmental violations would come in the next week.
“There’s tremendous pollution being put into the ocean because they’re going through what’s called the storm sewer that’s for rainwater,” Trump said. “And we have tremendous things that we don’t have to discuss pouring into the ocean. You know there are needles, there are other things.”
“It’s a terrible situation — that’s in Los Angeles and in San Francisco,” he continued. “And we’re going to be giving San Francisco, they’re in total violation, we’re going to be giving them a notice very soon.”...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462103-trump-says-epa-will-cite-san-...
Trump says EPA will cite San Francisco for pollution stemming from homelessness issues
Brett Samuels - 09/19/19
...Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump again took aim at Los Angeles and San Francisco over the volume of homeless people in each city. But he escalated his rhetoric, saying an announcement citing San Francisco for environmental violations would come in the next week.
“There’s tremendous pollution being put into the ocean because they’re going through what’s called the storm sewer that’s for rainwater,” Trump said. “And we have tremendous things that we don’t have to discuss pouring into the ocean. You know there are needles, there are other things.”
“It’s a terrible situation — that’s in Los Angeles and in San Francisco,” he continued. “And we’re going to be giving San Francisco, they’re in total violation, we’re going to be giving them a notice very soon.”...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462103-trump-says-epa-will-cite-san-...
11John5918
Trump whistleblower complaint: focus shifts to Ukraine amid Giuliani claims (Guardian)
In a testy interview on CNN on Thursday night, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, offered conflicting answers to questions on whether he had asked Ukraine to investigate the former vice-president Joe Biden. At one point he dismissed the claim as ridiculous before admitting it and saying he was proud of it...
Trump denies promise that led to formal complaint from US spy (BBC)
Donald Trump has rubbished a report alleging he made a promise to a foreign leader, something that sparked a whistleblower's formal complaint...
In a testy interview on CNN on Thursday night, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, offered conflicting answers to questions on whether he had asked Ukraine to investigate the former vice-president Joe Biden. At one point he dismissed the claim as ridiculous before admitting it and saying he was proud of it...
Trump denies promise that led to formal complaint from US spy (BBC)
Donald Trump has rubbished a report alleging he made a promise to a foreign leader, something that sparked a whistleblower's formal complaint...
12margd
'A deficiency in the law': How Trump accidentally exposed a whistleblower loophole
NATASHA BERTRAND | 09/19/2019
What happens when the administration won't tell Congress about a whistleblower complaint regarding the president? The answer to the once hard-to-fathom question is complicated.
...whistleblower protection laws never envisioned a scenario in which the director of national intelligence would withhold a complaint from Congress — especially one the inspector general had deemed “urgent.”
Typically, when the intelligence agencies’ inspector general deems a complaint “urgent,” it automatically triggers a requirement to notify Congress. Even if the IG refuses to slap the “urgent” label on a complaint, the law includes a workaround that allows whistleblowers to go straight to the intelligence committees on Capitol HIll.
But once the DNI steps in, that workaround clause is essentially nullified. The whistleblower isn’t supposed to go to the committee in that scenario, and the IG’s hands are arguably tied.
While Maguire may be technically adhering to the law, he is still “pretty brazenly misusing” the intelligence community whistleblower protection system, said Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst for the Government Accountability Project who focuses on intelligence community and military whistleblowing.
The fact that Maguire is now trying to usurp (Intelligence Community Inspector General) Atkinson’s sole authority to determine whether this whistleblower’s complaint is both credible and matter of urgent concern “is a body blow to the intelligence community inspector general’s independence,” McCullough added.
While most Republicans avoided wading into the brouhaha, some did agree that the incident highlights potential flaws with the statute.
...Schiff argued that the legal statute is not the issue — it's how Maguire and other government attorneys are interpreting it.
“I don’t think this is a problem of the law,” Schiff said. “I think the law is written very clearly. I think the law is just fine. The problem lies elsewhere.”
Maguire made the call to redirect the complaint after consulting with the Justice Department. The DNI’s general counsel, Jason Klitenic, also determined that because the complaint doesn’t involve someone “within the responsibility and authority” of the intelligence community, it can’t be deemed “urgent” and therefore doesn’t require transmittal to lawmakers.
Although Maguire has kept lawmakers in the dark, some contents of the complaint have been leaking into the press.
...To several whistleblowing attorneys, (IG) Atkinson’s decision to alert the committee about the complaint — even if he wouldn’t divulge any information about it — was its own form of whistleblowing.
“It’s a matryoshka doll of whistleblowing. It would’ve been procedurally proper for Maguire to forward a statement to Congress claiming privilege applies to the substance of the complaint, triggering a discussion over the privilege claim,” (Kel McClanahan, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm National Security Counselors) added. “But he didn’t do that. He said, ‘I don’t think it’s an urgent concern’ — an argument he’s not even in a position to make under the statute.”
...because of the privilege issues at play and the legal loopholes, it’s theoretically possible that Congress could never see the actual complaint...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/trump-whistleblower-loophole-1505636
ETA_______________________________________________________________
Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand | 9:56 PM · Sep 19, 2019:
The fact that Acting DNI Maguire is now trying to usurp the IG’s sole authority to determine whether this whistleblower’s complaint is both credible and matter of urgent concern “is a body blow to the intelligence community inspector general’s independence,” says @mcculloughirvin
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 7:40 AM · Sep 20, 2019
The House Intell Cmtee chaired by @RepAdamSchiff could ask the DC district court to issue a writ of mandamus* compelling Acting DNI Maguire to transmit the whistleblower’s urgent report to his Committee forthwith and issue a subpoena to get Maguire & the whistleblower to testify
And a writ of mandamus can stop that body blow (on intelligence community IG) from taking a lethal toll on the whistleblower law
*Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. Wikipedia
NATASHA BERTRAND | 09/19/2019
What happens when the administration won't tell Congress about a whistleblower complaint regarding the president? The answer to the once hard-to-fathom question is complicated.
...whistleblower protection laws never envisioned a scenario in which the director of national intelligence would withhold a complaint from Congress — especially one the inspector general had deemed “urgent.”
Typically, when the intelligence agencies’ inspector general deems a complaint “urgent,” it automatically triggers a requirement to notify Congress. Even if the IG refuses to slap the “urgent” label on a complaint, the law includes a workaround that allows whistleblowers to go straight to the intelligence committees on Capitol HIll.
But once the DNI steps in, that workaround clause is essentially nullified. The whistleblower isn’t supposed to go to the committee in that scenario, and the IG’s hands are arguably tied.
While Maguire may be technically adhering to the law, he is still “pretty brazenly misusing” the intelligence community whistleblower protection system, said Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst for the Government Accountability Project who focuses on intelligence community and military whistleblowing.
The fact that Maguire is now trying to usurp (Intelligence Community Inspector General) Atkinson’s sole authority to determine whether this whistleblower’s complaint is both credible and matter of urgent concern “is a body blow to the intelligence community inspector general’s independence,” McCullough added.
While most Republicans avoided wading into the brouhaha, some did agree that the incident highlights potential flaws with the statute.
...Schiff argued that the legal statute is not the issue — it's how Maguire and other government attorneys are interpreting it.
“I don’t think this is a problem of the law,” Schiff said. “I think the law is written very clearly. I think the law is just fine. The problem lies elsewhere.”
Maguire made the call to redirect the complaint after consulting with the Justice Department. The DNI’s general counsel, Jason Klitenic, also determined that because the complaint doesn’t involve someone “within the responsibility and authority” of the intelligence community, it can’t be deemed “urgent” and therefore doesn’t require transmittal to lawmakers.
Although Maguire has kept lawmakers in the dark, some contents of the complaint have been leaking into the press.
...To several whistleblowing attorneys, (IG) Atkinson’s decision to alert the committee about the complaint — even if he wouldn’t divulge any information about it — was its own form of whistleblowing.
“It’s a matryoshka doll of whistleblowing. It would’ve been procedurally proper for Maguire to forward a statement to Congress claiming privilege applies to the substance of the complaint, triggering a discussion over the privilege claim,” (Kel McClanahan, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm National Security Counselors) added. “But he didn’t do that. He said, ‘I don’t think it’s an urgent concern’ — an argument he’s not even in a position to make under the statute.”
...because of the privilege issues at play and the legal loopholes, it’s theoretically possible that Congress could never see the actual complaint...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/trump-whistleblower-loophole-1505636
ETA_______________________________________________________________
Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand | 9:56 PM · Sep 19, 2019:
The fact that Acting DNI Maguire is now trying to usurp the IG’s sole authority to determine whether this whistleblower’s complaint is both credible and matter of urgent concern “is a body blow to the intelligence community inspector general’s independence,” says @mcculloughirvin
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 7:40 AM · Sep 20, 2019
The House Intell Cmtee chaired by @RepAdamSchiff could ask the DC district court to issue a writ of mandamus* compelling Acting DNI Maguire to transmit the whistleblower’s urgent report to his Committee forthwith and issue a subpoena to get Maguire & the whistleblower to testify
And a writ of mandamus can stop that body blow (on intelligence community IG) from taking a lethal toll on the whistleblower law
*Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. Wikipedia
13margd
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 8:27 AM · Sep 20, 2019:
The Radical Left Democrats and their Fake News Media partners, headed up again by Little Adam Schiff, and batting Zero for 21 against me,
are at it again!
They think I may have had a “dicey” conversation with a certain foreign leader based on a “highly partisan” whistleblowers..
....statement. Strange that with so many other people hearing or knowing of the perfectly fine and respectful conversation,
that they would not have also come forward.
Do you know the reason why they did not? Because there was nothing said wrong, it was pitch perfect!
________________________________________________
Matthew Miller @matthewamiller (MSNBC)| 8:45 AM · Sep 20, 2019
However this ends up,
the whistleblower is going to have a pretty good argument that he or she was illegally retaliated against just based on this attack.
Trump’s words send a message to the entire bureaucracy.
The Radical Left Democrats and their Fake News Media partners, headed up again by Little Adam Schiff, and batting Zero for 21 against me,
are at it again!
They think I may have had a “dicey” conversation with a certain foreign leader based on a “highly partisan” whistleblowers..
....statement. Strange that with so many other people hearing or knowing of the perfectly fine and respectful conversation,
that they would not have also come forward.
Do you know the reason why they did not? Because there was nothing said wrong, it was pitch perfect!
________________________________________________
Matthew Miller @matthewamiller (MSNBC)| 8:45 AM · Sep 20, 2019
However this ends up,
the whistleblower is going to have a pretty good argument that he or she was illegally retaliated against just based on this attack.
Trump’s words send a message to the entire bureaucracy.
14margd
Mad About Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? The Best Way to Get Even Is to Pack the Court
Jamelle Bouie |
...Should (Democrats) win a federal “trifecta” — the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives — they’ll still have to deal with a Trump-branded judiciary. It’s entirely possible that a future Democratic agenda would be circumscribed and unraveled by a Supreme Court whose slim conservative majority owes itself to minority government and constitutional hardball.
So what should Democrats do? They should play hardball back. Congress, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, decides the number of judges. It’s been 150 years since it changed the size of the Supreme Court. I think it’s time to revisit the issue. Should Democrats win that trifecta, they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court. Add two additional seats to account for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell’s attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.
The reasoning underpinning this proposal isn’t just about the future; it’s about the past. We have had two rounds of minority government in under two decades — two occasions where executive power went to the popular-vote loser. Rather than moderate their aims and ambitions, both presidents have empowered ideologues and aggressively spread their influence. We are due for a course correction.
The goal isn’t to make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy, but to make sure elected majorities can govern — to keep the United States a democratic republic and not a judge-ocracy. Yes, there are genuine constitutional disputes, questions about individual rights and the scope of federal power. At the same time, there are broad readings of the Constitution — ones that give our elected officials the necessary power to act and to solve problems — and narrow readings, which handcuff and restrict the range of our government...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/kavanaugh-trump-packing-court.html
Jamelle Bouie |
...Should (Democrats) win a federal “trifecta” — the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives — they’ll still have to deal with a Trump-branded judiciary. It’s entirely possible that a future Democratic agenda would be circumscribed and unraveled by a Supreme Court whose slim conservative majority owes itself to minority government and constitutional hardball.
So what should Democrats do? They should play hardball back. Congress, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, decides the number of judges. It’s been 150 years since it changed the size of the Supreme Court. I think it’s time to revisit the issue. Should Democrats win that trifecta, they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court. Add two additional seats to account for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell’s attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.
The reasoning underpinning this proposal isn’t just about the future; it’s about the past. We have had two rounds of minority government in under two decades — two occasions where executive power went to the popular-vote loser. Rather than moderate their aims and ambitions, both presidents have empowered ideologues and aggressively spread their influence. We are due for a course correction.
The goal isn’t to make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy, but to make sure elected majorities can govern — to keep the United States a democratic republic and not a judge-ocracy. Yes, there are genuine constitutional disputes, questions about individual rights and the scope of federal power. At the same time, there are broad readings of the Constitution — ones that give our elected officials the necessary power to act and to solve problems — and narrow readings, which handcuff and restrict the range of our government...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/kavanaugh-trump-packing-court.html
15margd
More to come, I'm sure, including appeals but
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 1:41 PM · Oct 11, 2019
Representing El Paso County,
we just won our summary judgment motion in the district court challenge
we filed to invalidate Trump’s “emergency” declaration
as a lawless way to build a wall that Congress refused to fund!
ETA_____________________________________________________________
Federal judges rule against Trump in 3 cases on executive powers
David Knowles | 10/11/2019
President Trump suffered defeats in three major court rulings Friday that address the limits of his executive authority.
...While Friday’s decisions stem from cases unrelated to the Ukraine matter, they each address what plaintiffs claimed was a president overstepping his constitutional bounds.
(1) A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court decision, ruling that Congress can see eight years of Trump’s business records held by his accounting firm, Mazars USA. The House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed the records after the president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified that Trump had exaggerated his wealth when applying for loans, which is a crime....
(2) ...U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking a Trump administration rule set to take effect next week that would have made it easier to deny green cards and visas to immigrants who cannot show they will not require public assistance. After the administration announced the new rule, nearly a dozen states filed suit to block it....
(3) U.S. District Court Judge David Briones, in the Western District of Texas, ruled that the declaration of a national emergency under which Trump diverted funds from other agencies to construct a Mexico border wall was unlawful.
The decision found that the law “expressly forbids” a president from using money allocated by Congress for any other purpose than was originally set forth. The county of El Paso and the Border Network for Human Rights brought the lawsuit, contending that Trump had broken the law by diverting Defense Department funds to build the wall...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-suffers-losses-in-3-major-court-decisions-20230...
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 1:41 PM · Oct 11, 2019
Representing El Paso County,
we just won our summary judgment motion in the district court challenge
we filed to invalidate Trump’s “emergency” declaration
as a lawless way to build a wall that Congress refused to fund!
ETA_____________________________________________________________
Federal judges rule against Trump in 3 cases on executive powers
David Knowles | 10/11/2019
President Trump suffered defeats in three major court rulings Friday that address the limits of his executive authority.
...While Friday’s decisions stem from cases unrelated to the Ukraine matter, they each address what plaintiffs claimed was a president overstepping his constitutional bounds.
(1) A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court decision, ruling that Congress can see eight years of Trump’s business records held by his accounting firm, Mazars USA. The House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed the records after the president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified that Trump had exaggerated his wealth when applying for loans, which is a crime....
(2) ...U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking a Trump administration rule set to take effect next week that would have made it easier to deny green cards and visas to immigrants who cannot show they will not require public assistance. After the administration announced the new rule, nearly a dozen states filed suit to block it....
(3) U.S. District Court Judge David Briones, in the Western District of Texas, ruled that the declaration of a national emergency under which Trump diverted funds from other agencies to construct a Mexico border wall was unlawful.
The decision found that the law “expressly forbids” a president from using money allocated by Congress for any other purpose than was originally set forth. The county of El Paso and the Border Network for Human Rights brought the lawsuit, contending that Trump had broken the law by diverting Defense Department funds to build the wall...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-suffers-losses-in-3-major-court-decisions-20230...
16margd
Once Trump is gone, the U.S. must completely reform the presidency
Darragh Roche | October 14, 2019
Trump himself has committed a panoply of impeachable offences.
...To prevent another President Trump, the presidency itself must be diminished. Congress must reclaim the power to make war and peace. The White House must submit to greater scrutiny and be legally required to do so. Measures should be put in place to detect presidential malpractice early on, stop it, and punish it. None of this should require changes to the constitution, just changes to the law and political culture.
But the political parties must also reform themselves. Their processes for choosing a presidential candidate should not be a free-for-all. Trump was able to waltz into the Republican primaries in 2016 with no long-standing membership of the party and no experience of public office. Similarly, independent Senator Bernie Sanders fades in and out of the Democratic Party as the electoral season dictates. These practices must be brought to an end.
If it takes this horrific circus of a presidency to teach America’s political establishment that only fundamental change will protect the country, and the world, from unfit presidents, it is a price worth paying. History, however, suggests we will be short-changed.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/once-trump-is-gone-the-u-s-must-comple...
Darragh Roche | October 14, 2019
Trump himself has committed a panoply of impeachable offences.
...To prevent another President Trump, the presidency itself must be diminished. Congress must reclaim the power to make war and peace. The White House must submit to greater scrutiny and be legally required to do so. Measures should be put in place to detect presidential malpractice early on, stop it, and punish it. None of this should require changes to the constitution, just changes to the law and political culture.
But the political parties must also reform themselves. Their processes for choosing a presidential candidate should not be a free-for-all. Trump was able to waltz into the Republican primaries in 2016 with no long-standing membership of the party and no experience of public office. Similarly, independent Senator Bernie Sanders fades in and out of the Democratic Party as the electoral season dictates. These practices must be brought to an end.
If it takes this horrific circus of a presidency to teach America’s political establishment that only fundamental change will protect the country, and the world, from unfit presidents, it is a price worth paying. History, however, suggests we will be short-changed.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/once-trump-is-gone-the-u-s-must-comple...
17margd
God Is Now Trump’s Co-Conspirator
Paul Krugman | Oct. 14, 2019
Bigotry, both racial and religious, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
...speech William Barr, the attorney general, gave last week at the University of Notre Dame Law School,
...fiery speech denouncing the threat to America posed by “militant secularists,” whom he accused of conspiring to destroy the “traditional moral order,” blaming them for rising mental illness, drug dependency and violence.
Consider for a moment how inappropriate it is for Barr, of all people, to have given such a speech. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; the nation’s chief law enforcement officer has no business denouncing those who exercise that freedom by choosing not to endorse any religion.
And we’re not talking about a tiny group, either. These days, around a fifth of Americans say that they don’t consider themselves affiliated with any religion, roughly the same number who consider themselves Catholic. How would we react if the attorney general denounced Catholicism as a force undermining American society?
And he didn’t just declare that secularism is bad; he declared that the damage it does is intentional: “This is not decay. It is organized destruction.” If that kind of talk doesn’t scare you, it should; it’s the language of witch hunts and pogroms...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/trump-william-barr-speech.html
Paul Krugman | Oct. 14, 2019
Bigotry, both racial and religious, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
...speech William Barr, the attorney general, gave last week at the University of Notre Dame Law School,
...fiery speech denouncing the threat to America posed by “militant secularists,” whom he accused of conspiring to destroy the “traditional moral order,” blaming them for rising mental illness, drug dependency and violence.
Consider for a moment how inappropriate it is for Barr, of all people, to have given such a speech. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; the nation’s chief law enforcement officer has no business denouncing those who exercise that freedom by choosing not to endorse any religion.
And we’re not talking about a tiny group, either. These days, around a fifth of Americans say that they don’t consider themselves affiliated with any religion, roughly the same number who consider themselves Catholic. How would we react if the attorney general denounced Catholicism as a force undermining American society?
And he didn’t just declare that secularism is bad; he declared that the damage it does is intentional: “This is not decay. It is organized destruction.” If that kind of talk doesn’t scare you, it should; it’s the language of witch hunts and pogroms...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/trump-william-barr-speech.html
18margd
Julian Borger @julianborger | 12:23 PM · Oct 16, 2019:
btw..
Trump just became the first US official to confirm the presence of 50 US nuclear bombs based
in Turkey. "We're very confident" they're safe, he told reporters, via WH Pool
US and Nato officials never talk about nuclear deployments abroad.
btw..
Trump just became the first US official to confirm the presence of 50 US nuclear bombs based
in Turkey. "We're very confident" they're safe, he told reporters, via WH Pool
US and Nato officials never talk about nuclear deployments abroad.
19lriley
Reports are that Erdogan threw Trump's 'let's make a deal and lay off the Kurds' letter in the trash. Which is to say Erdogan thinks Trump is weak. By the way we have a lot (as in 50 B61 gravity bombs) of nuclear weapons sitting at Incirlik airbase right now in Turkey. What if the Turks made a move on them?
202wonderY
Fox News legal analyst: Trump's move to host G-7 at Doral resort 'direct' and 'profound' violation of Constitution
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that President Trump's decision to host next year's Group of Seven (G-7) summit at one of his golf properties in Florida was a "direct" and "profound" violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.
“He has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is about as direct and profound a violation of the Emoluments Clause as one could create,” Napolitano said on the Fox Business Network while citing passages from the constitutional provision.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that President Trump's decision to host next year's Group of Seven (G-7) summit at one of his golf properties in Florida was a "direct" and "profound" violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.
“He has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is about as direct and profound a violation of the Emoluments Clause as one could create,” Napolitano said on the Fox Business Network while citing passages from the constitutional provision.
21proximity1
>20 2wonderY:
there are three instances in which the Constitution's text is concerned with "emoluments" and none of them, not one, relates to this set of circumstances.
Just try something novel and read the clauses. Then try and think.
When you do that, you find there is nothing going on here which in the slightest violates anything in these clauses.
More fucking stupidity from the people who'll tie themselves into knots to make something look like what they want it to look like.
● Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, also called the Incompatibility Clause, affecting members of Congress |
● The Foreign Emoluments Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, also called the Title of Nobility Clause, affecting the executive branch * |
● The Domestic Emoluments Clause, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, also called the Presidential Emoluments Clause, affecting the President's salary |
____________________________________
* ... "prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. The Clause is subject to interpretation.(2) Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the federal officeholders of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences.' "
_____________________________
Demand your University refund your tuition fees. You were robbed.
there are three instances in which the Constitution's text is concerned with "emoluments" and none of them, not one, relates to this set of circumstances.
Just try something novel and read the clauses. Then try and think.
When you do that, you find there is nothing going on here which in the slightest violates anything in these clauses.
More fucking stupidity from the people who'll tie themselves into knots to make something look like what they want it to look like.
● Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, also called the Incompatibility Clause, affecting members of Congress |
● The Foreign Emoluments Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, also called the Title of Nobility Clause, affecting the executive branch * |
● The Domestic Emoluments Clause, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, also called the Presidential Emoluments Clause, affecting the President's salary |
____________________________________
* ... "prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. The Clause is subject to interpretation.(2) Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the federal officeholders of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences.' "
_____________________________
Demand your University refund your tuition fees. You were robbed.
22John5918
>21 proximity1:
Surely there must be some policy or code of conduct that prevents a federal employee from benefiting their own company in this manner? Otherwise every employee would be ordering everything from paper clips to fighter jets from companies in which they have a financial interest. At the very least there should be a procurement policy that requires a number of quotes or tenders from different companies, and a paper trail showing why one was selected. That, incidentally, is a policy which the US government imposes on beneficiaries of aid money.
Surely there must be some policy or code of conduct that prevents a federal employee from benefiting their own company in this manner? Otherwise every employee would be ordering everything from paper clips to fighter jets from companies in which they have a financial interest. At the very least there should be a procurement policy that requires a number of quotes or tenders from different companies, and a paper trail showing why one was selected. That, incidentally, is a policy which the US government imposes on beneficiaries of aid money.
23jjwilson61
I think that calling this out as an emolument violation is a mistake. It will just cause most people to tune it out as too esoteric. It should be called out as a corrupt practice since its obvious that whatever vetting process Mulvaney had his staff go through, the outcome was predetermined.
24mikevail
>22 John5918:
Could fall under 18 U.S.C. 208 which covers personal financial interest. You can google it. Reads a bit stilted as you might expect.
Could fall under 18 U.S.C. 208 which covers personal financial interest. You can google it. Reads a bit stilted as you might expect.
25John5918
General discontent: how the president's military men turned on Trump (Guardian)
Trump once based his cabinet around retired generals but his Syria policy lurch has brought unprecedented military scorn on his head
Trump once based his cabinet around retired generals but his Syria policy lurch has brought unprecedented military scorn on his head
26margd
They Are Not the Resistance. They Are Not a Cabal. They Are Public Servants.
Let us now praise these not-silent heroes.
Michelle Cottle | Oct. 20, 2019
Fiona Hill (former top national security adviser on Russia and Europe)...
Michael McKinley (a top adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo until this month )...
Marie Yovanovitch (former ambassador to Ukraine)...
whistle-blower who effectively initiated the impeachment investigation
when these folks saw something suspicious, they said something. Their aim was not to bring down Mr. Trump out of personal or political animus but to rescue the Republic from his excesses. Those who refuse to silently indulge this president’s worst impulses qualify as heroes — and deserve our gratitude.
Throughout the Trump presidency, there has been a trickle of fed-up individuals willing to step up and protest the administration’s war on science, expertise and facts.
Rod Schoonover left his job as an analyst for the State Department...
Joel Clement, formerly the director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the Interior Department, filed a whistle-blower complaint...
Lewis Ziska, a veteran plant physiologist with the Agriculture Department, quit in protest...
With an impeachment inquiry underway in the House, the risks of breaking ranks with the president are higher than ever. Mr. Trump prides himself on punching back against perceived enemies, publicly suggesting that “spies” and “traitors” and people who turn “rat” deserve to have their lives and their families destroyed. Small wonder that few congressional Republicans have dared express even gentle concern over Mr. Trump’s increasingly erratic behavior.
...Right on cue, Mr. Trump’s lackeys are responding to such breaches of fealty by going on the attack. In a media briefing on Thursday, the White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, dismissed the witnesses who had spoken to impeachment investigators: “What you are seeing now, I believe, is a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, ‘You know what, I don’t like President Trump’s politics, so I’m going to participate in this witch hunt.’”
That may be what Mr. Mulvaney hears when he listens to these men and women. But many, many others will hear veteran public servants appalled by an administration that continues to subvert the public interest to the whims of a president who has mistaken himself for a king.
This is Mr. Trump’s deep state. For the sake of the nation, the American public should be clamoring for more patriots to join the conspiracy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/opinion/trump-impeachment-testimony.html
_______________________________________________________________________
IRS whistleblower
______________ ?
______________ ?
______________ ?
...
Let us now praise these not-silent heroes.
Michelle Cottle | Oct. 20, 2019
Fiona Hill (former top national security adviser on Russia and Europe)...
Michael McKinley (a top adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo until this month )...
Marie Yovanovitch (former ambassador to Ukraine)...
whistle-blower who effectively initiated the impeachment investigation
when these folks saw something suspicious, they said something. Their aim was not to bring down Mr. Trump out of personal or political animus but to rescue the Republic from his excesses. Those who refuse to silently indulge this president’s worst impulses qualify as heroes — and deserve our gratitude.
Throughout the Trump presidency, there has been a trickle of fed-up individuals willing to step up and protest the administration’s war on science, expertise and facts.
Rod Schoonover left his job as an analyst for the State Department...
Joel Clement, formerly the director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the Interior Department, filed a whistle-blower complaint...
Lewis Ziska, a veteran plant physiologist with the Agriculture Department, quit in protest...
With an impeachment inquiry underway in the House, the risks of breaking ranks with the president are higher than ever. Mr. Trump prides himself on punching back against perceived enemies, publicly suggesting that “spies” and “traitors” and people who turn “rat” deserve to have their lives and their families destroyed. Small wonder that few congressional Republicans have dared express even gentle concern over Mr. Trump’s increasingly erratic behavior.
...Right on cue, Mr. Trump’s lackeys are responding to such breaches of fealty by going on the attack. In a media briefing on Thursday, the White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, dismissed the witnesses who had spoken to impeachment investigators: “What you are seeing now, I believe, is a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, ‘You know what, I don’t like President Trump’s politics, so I’m going to participate in this witch hunt.’”
That may be what Mr. Mulvaney hears when he listens to these men and women. But many, many others will hear veteran public servants appalled by an administration that continues to subvert the public interest to the whims of a president who has mistaken himself for a king.
This is Mr. Trump’s deep state. For the sake of the nation, the American public should be clamoring for more patriots to join the conspiracy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/opinion/trump-impeachment-testimony.html
_______________________________________________________________________
IRS whistleblower
______________ ?
______________ ?
______________ ?
...
272wonderY
Trump campaign manager discussed using facial recognition at rallies to analyze reaction of supporters
The (Wall Street) Journal also reported that Trump himself lobbied to bring cabinet members to his June rally in Orlando, Florida. The outlet said that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney warned the president about potential violations of the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from participating in political activities under their official titles.
Trump responded “I’m in charge of the Hatch Act” in a meeting with top aides and accused Mulvaney of being “weak,” according to the Journal.
The (Wall Street) Journal also reported that Trump himself lobbied to bring cabinet members to his June rally in Orlando, Florida. The outlet said that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney warned the president about potential violations of the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from participating in political activities under their official titles.
Trump responded “I’m in charge of the Hatch Act” in a meeting with top aides and accused Mulvaney of being “weak,” according to the Journal.
28margd
I've seen this more than once (elected officials / political appointees) squashing civil servants). They apparently see civil servants as dispensable pawns for special interests. That's why Trumpian plans to ease requirements for terminating career civil servants are so scary--both for staff and those of us who want to see law evenly applied and resources and least of us protected.
U.S. Diplomat: State Department Nixed Plan To Support Former Ukrainian Ambassador
Bobby Allyn | October 26, 2019
...In a rare Saturday hearing, Reeker sat for more than eight hours of questions from lawmakers running the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Reeker appeared under a subpoena issued by House lawmakers, despite being ordered not to cooperate by Trump.
(Philip) Reeker, a career foreign servicer officer, was named the acting assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian affairs in March, a few months before (Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch) became a political target and was removed from her post.
Just before her ouster, however, Reeker wanted to draft a strongly-worded statement from State Department officials to strike back at the attacks she was enduring in conservative media and by allies of Trump. But that letter was scotched by David Hale, the No. 3 official in the State Department, according to the person familar with Reeker's testimony.
Yovanovitch was seen by Trump allies as an obstacle to conducting a back-channel foreign policy with Ukraine, including the freezing of nearly $400 million in military aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate Trump's political rival Joe Biden and his son. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has called the impeachment inquiry a scam.
...Reeker, who joined the State Department in 1992, is celebrated by colleagues as an apolitical professional whose reputation is admired...
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773761689/u-s-diplomat-state-department-nixed-pla...
U.S. Diplomat: State Department Nixed Plan To Support Former Ukrainian Ambassador
Bobby Allyn | October 26, 2019
...In a rare Saturday hearing, Reeker sat for more than eight hours of questions from lawmakers running the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Reeker appeared under a subpoena issued by House lawmakers, despite being ordered not to cooperate by Trump.
(Philip) Reeker, a career foreign servicer officer, was named the acting assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian affairs in March, a few months before (Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch) became a political target and was removed from her post.
Just before her ouster, however, Reeker wanted to draft a strongly-worded statement from State Department officials to strike back at the attacks she was enduring in conservative media and by allies of Trump. But that letter was scotched by David Hale, the No. 3 official in the State Department, according to the person familar with Reeker's testimony.
Yovanovitch was seen by Trump allies as an obstacle to conducting a back-channel foreign policy with Ukraine, including the freezing of nearly $400 million in military aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate Trump's political rival Joe Biden and his son. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has called the impeachment inquiry a scam.
...Reeker, who joined the State Department in 1992, is celebrated by colleagues as an apolitical professional whose reputation is admired...
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773761689/u-s-diplomat-state-department-nixed-pla...
29margd
House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif told ABC’s “This Week” that Trump failure to inform Gang of 8 Congressional leaders of Baghdadi raid would have been most felt if there any problems had cropped up.
Trump did not brief Pelosi and other top congressional leaders on Baghdadi raid
Todd Haselton | Oct 27 2019
President Trump said on Sunday that he did not brief Pelosi and other leaders about the raid which lead to the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Trump said he was afraid of leaks, though Pelosi and Adam Schiff, both members of the “Gang of 8,” are running Trump’s impeachment inquiry.
Trump said he informed Russia the U.S. was moving through its airspace but did not tell them why.
...“We were going to notify them last night but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before,” Trump said. “There’s nothing -- there’s no country in the world that leaks like we do. And Washington is a leaking machine. And I told my people we will not notify them until the -- our great people are out. Not just in, but out. I don’t want to have them greeted with firepower like you wouldn’t believe.”
Trump did speak with Republican Senators Richard Burr and Lindsay Graham.
The Gang of 8 is a group of top congressional leaders that the executive branch briefs on classified intelligence...“In terms of notifying the Gang of 8, that wasn’t done,” Sen. Burr, whom Trump spoke with Sunday, is a member of the group. In addition to Schiff and Burr, the group includes Devin Nunes, R-Calif.; Mark Warner, D-Virginia; Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.; Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky and Chuck Schumer, D-New York.
In a statement published on the House Speaker’s website, Pelosi saluted “the heroism, dedication and skill of our military and our intelligence professionals,” but she said the president must brief congressional leadership on the raid.
“The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top Congressional Leadership were notified of in advance, and on the Administration’s overall strategy in the region,” Pelosi said. “Our military and allies deserve strong, smart and strategic leadership from Washington.”
...Trump suggested during a press conference on Sunday morning that Russia was notified because U.S. forces flew through its airspace...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-did-not-brief-pelosi-and-other-top-congres...
Trump did not brief Pelosi and other top congressional leaders on Baghdadi raid
Todd Haselton | Oct 27 2019
President Trump said on Sunday that he did not brief Pelosi and other leaders about the raid which lead to the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Trump said he was afraid of leaks, though Pelosi and Adam Schiff, both members of the “Gang of 8,” are running Trump’s impeachment inquiry.
Trump said he informed Russia the U.S. was moving through its airspace but did not tell them why.
...“We were going to notify them last night but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before,” Trump said. “There’s nothing -- there’s no country in the world that leaks like we do. And Washington is a leaking machine. And I told my people we will not notify them until the -- our great people are out. Not just in, but out. I don’t want to have them greeted with firepower like you wouldn’t believe.”
Trump did speak with Republican Senators Richard Burr and Lindsay Graham.
The Gang of 8 is a group of top congressional leaders that the executive branch briefs on classified intelligence...“In terms of notifying the Gang of 8, that wasn’t done,” Sen. Burr, whom Trump spoke with Sunday, is a member of the group. In addition to Schiff and Burr, the group includes Devin Nunes, R-Calif.; Mark Warner, D-Virginia; Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.; Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky and Chuck Schumer, D-New York.
In a statement published on the House Speaker’s website, Pelosi saluted “the heroism, dedication and skill of our military and our intelligence professionals,” but she said the president must brief congressional leadership on the raid.
“The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top Congressional Leadership were notified of in advance, and on the Administration’s overall strategy in the region,” Pelosi said. “Our military and allies deserve strong, smart and strategic leadership from Washington.”
...Trump suggested during a press conference on Sunday morning that Russia was notified because U.S. forces flew through its airspace...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-did-not-brief-pelosi-and-other-top-congres...
302wonderY
Some commentators, such as Joe Scarborough, found the crowd's chant of "Lock him up!" at the World Series game yesterday alarming and offensive.
A Highly Paid Pundit at Slate is just confused - I Don’t Understand Jokes or Context
I fail to see how a political candidate encouraging a threatening chant toward his opponent—one that he would later attempt to follow through on when he took power—might be different than a group of citizens in a nonpolitical setting expressing displeasure with an elected official who, in our system of government, works for them. Nor have I considered the fact that impeachment, as a constitutional power granted to the House of Representatives, is a matter in which the judgment of the general public is relevant.
I am utterly confused by the notion that a chant about locking someone up has a different context now than it did before Trump’s audiences made the concept famous—and that, in that context, the World Series crowd’s ironic reversal of Trump’s own rhetoric could be considered clever and even humorous. I do not appreciate how this reversal functions as a meta-commentary on the bubble in which the president has isolated himself, usually refusing to appear before any crowd that has not been prescreened for loyalty and enthusiasm, so that he is wholly unprepared to encounter any displays of ordinary criticism or dissent.
A Highly Paid Pundit at Slate is just confused - I Don’t Understand Jokes or Context
I fail to see how a political candidate encouraging a threatening chant toward his opponent—one that he would later attempt to follow through on when he took power—might be different than a group of citizens in a nonpolitical setting expressing displeasure with an elected official who, in our system of government, works for them. Nor have I considered the fact that impeachment, as a constitutional power granted to the House of Representatives, is a matter in which the judgment of the general public is relevant.
I am utterly confused by the notion that a chant about locking someone up has a different context now than it did before Trump’s audiences made the concept famous—and that, in that context, the World Series crowd’s ironic reversal of Trump’s own rhetoric could be considered clever and even humorous. I do not appreciate how this reversal functions as a meta-commentary on the bubble in which the president has isolated himself, usually refusing to appear before any crowd that has not been prescreened for loyalty and enthusiasm, so that he is wholly unprepared to encounter any displays of ordinary criticism or dissent.
31margd
Good thing Trump took Gaetz and Graham to the game and not Barron, which I originally thought a mis-step on his part.
33lriley
#31---Barron's been on the outs ever since his growth spurt. Donald can't tolerate his son being taller than he is.
#30--Scarborough's an anti-Trump republican looking for a conservative political party. He'd like the democrats to be that party. He's kind of out in limbo right now. I see nothing but poetic justice in the crowd chant the other night.
#30--Scarborough's an anti-Trump republican looking for a conservative political party. He'd like the democrats to be that party. He's kind of out in limbo right now. I see nothing but poetic justice in the crowd chant the other night.
342wonderY
Vox presents more opinions on it
The debate over chanting “lock him up” at Trump, explained
Some commentators, for instance, stressed the particular context here — that this was a crowd taunting an incumbent president to his face with his own words, making it more of a form of protest, in contrast to a crowd urging a potential (or actual) president to lock up despised political opponents.
What’s seemingly implicit in these arguments is that, in a different context — say, a Democratic presidential campaign — chants of “lock him up” aimed at Trump would indeed be inappropriate.
However, other chant defenders took a different tack, arguing that Trump’s alleged crimes are indeed far worse than Hillary Clinton’s, and do indeed merit his “locking up.”
…
All this would seemingly imply that, yes, Democratic crowds chanting in favor of Trump’s imprisonment would be perfectly appropriate — because he should in fact be charged and imprisoned. (Though there is some variation in what, exactly, these critics think Trump should be imprisoned for — as there was for Clinton’s critics.)
The debate over chanting “lock him up” at Trump, explained
Some commentators, for instance, stressed the particular context here — that this was a crowd taunting an incumbent president to his face with his own words, making it more of a form of protest, in contrast to a crowd urging a potential (or actual) president to lock up despised political opponents.
What’s seemingly implicit in these arguments is that, in a different context — say, a Democratic presidential campaign — chants of “lock him up” aimed at Trump would indeed be inappropriate.
However, other chant defenders took a different tack, arguing that Trump’s alleged crimes are indeed far worse than Hillary Clinton’s, and do indeed merit his “locking up.”
…
All this would seemingly imply that, yes, Democratic crowds chanting in favor of Trump’s imprisonment would be perfectly appropriate — because he should in fact be charged and imprisoned. (Though there is some variation in what, exactly, these critics think Trump should be imprisoned for — as there was for Clinton’s critics.)
35LolaWalser
What's all this hypocritical clucking and pearl-clutching over "lock him up" and why should anyone give a flying fuck what the likes of Joe Scarborough think?
before Trump’s audiences made the concept famous
Infamous, not "famous" is the word to use--and it's also odd to call Trumpist all-out assault on Clinton a "concept", like it's a new idea in interior design to try out.
Now is a little late to bemoan what the American political scene came to be, and to pretend everyone's the same is equal parts laughable and atrocious. Trump brought you the Nazi-loving shitshow; Trumpists and no one else demonstrate how low it will go.
"Lock him up" is nothing but sweet justice. It IS funny and it IS ironic, not only because the orange ape is finally getting a dose of his own medicine, but because he so richly, so vastly, so decades-long-in-waiting deserves it.
Clinton was torn apart by the media, the FBI, by Trumpist swine and "useful idiots", all with the final justification of using an insecure server. Not one shit anywhere has dug out a smidgen of evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her side.
But Trump? LOL! Where does one even begin. This conman, racist, misogynist, rapist bully and psycho--when was the last time in his life he did no worse than "Hillary's emails"? Grade school? I bet he was a nasty little prick torturing others even then.
So, yeah. I hope "lock him up" worms its way into what he has in the brain pan and stays there. I hope it's Tlaib and Omar and AOC he sees locking him up and throwing away the key.
Lock the motherfucker up--should be the national anthem.
before Trump’s audiences made the concept famous
Infamous, not "famous" is the word to use--and it's also odd to call Trumpist all-out assault on Clinton a "concept", like it's a new idea in interior design to try out.
Now is a little late to bemoan what the American political scene came to be, and to pretend everyone's the same is equal parts laughable and atrocious. Trump brought you the Nazi-loving shitshow; Trumpists and no one else demonstrate how low it will go.
"Lock him up" is nothing but sweet justice. It IS funny and it IS ironic, not only because the orange ape is finally getting a dose of his own medicine, but because he so richly, so vastly, so decades-long-in-waiting deserves it.
Clinton was torn apart by the media, the FBI, by Trumpist swine and "useful idiots", all with the final justification of using an insecure server. Not one shit anywhere has dug out a smidgen of evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her side.
But Trump? LOL! Where does one even begin. This conman, racist, misogynist, rapist bully and psycho--when was the last time in his life he did no worse than "Hillary's emails"? Grade school? I bet he was a nasty little prick torturing others even then.
So, yeah. I hope "lock him up" worms its way into what he has in the brain pan and stays there. I hope it's Tlaib and Omar and AOC he sees locking him up and throwing away the key.
Lock the motherfucker up--should be the national anthem.
36lriley
FWIW impeachment and removal is what Congress (both the House and Senate) will be at shortly. He will be impeached (there's almost no doubt of that) but if he's removed he's not going to prison straight afterwards. Certain articles of impeachment if he were to be convicted by the Senate would bar him though from running for any office in the future. His going to prison will have to happen after the removal process. He will be have to be charged with a crime, tried and convicted in a state or federal court of law. That's coming IMO whether he survives removal or not. At least if he hasn't absconded to another country. There will be others (maybe even a lot of others) that are going to go down with him. Giuliani is a sure bet--Mulvaney probably too. I wouldn't like to be in Pompeo's or Barr's shoes and I don't think that Pence is necessarily safe either. He could get easily dragged into this. Rick Perry.
They're working off Trump's own words in the transcript--his asking the Chinese on national TV as well to help him. Mulvaney's confession and the testimony of State department people including people who'd originally threw in their lot with Trump's project--like Volker and Sondland--and who are looking for an escape hatch now. The whistleblower is only a small part of it now and not all that essential because the shit has been corroborated by those who have testified in the hearings to the transcript and to the plea for China's help. Trump simply has never been able to figure out what is lawful from what is unlawful. He continued to play the same game he got away with in the Mueller investigation. Just because he got away with it the first time should have been a lesson learned. He got caught out the second time like the clown he is.
They're working off Trump's own words in the transcript--his asking the Chinese on national TV as well to help him. Mulvaney's confession and the testimony of State department people including people who'd originally threw in their lot with Trump's project--like Volker and Sondland--and who are looking for an escape hatch now. The whistleblower is only a small part of it now and not all that essential because the shit has been corroborated by those who have testified in the hearings to the transcript and to the plea for China's help. Trump simply has never been able to figure out what is lawful from what is unlawful. He continued to play the same game he got away with in the Mueller investigation. Just because he got away with it the first time should have been a lesson learned. He got caught out the second time like the clown he is.
37LolaWalser
Trump simply has never been able to figure out what is lawful from what is unlawful.
He doesn't care, his is the mentality of a greasy small-time mafioso--how far can I get clutching at anything I want, and if there's hot water, that's what his shyster lawyers are for. He's too stupid and too narcissistic to figure out that he needed someone smarter than himself to cover his ass, not imbeciles like Giuliani or any other of the parade of freaks around him.
He doesn't care, his is the mentality of a greasy small-time mafioso--how far can I get clutching at anything I want, and if there's hot water, that's what his shyster lawyers are for. He's too stupid and too narcissistic to figure out that he needed someone smarter than himself to cover his ass, not imbeciles like Giuliani or any other of the parade of freaks around him.
38lriley
#37--it's because Trump's always been able to get out of everything so that he looks at himself as infallible and his act is part mafia don--part would be dictator. The only world leaders he seems to get along with are the worst of the worst. I don't know what's happened to Giuliani--mind you I never ever liked him but he's turned into an imbecile--he wasn't alway an imbecile. He use to run SDNY the best federal prosecuting district in the United States and the one that's most likely to prosecute him. I can only think he's so addicted to celebrity that he'll do almost anything to be a bigshot in the news.
The truth about Trump is he's a pathetic clown--he's been faking his way throughout his life. He was a lousy student, was bankrolled by his dad, he bankrupted a casino, ran a sham university and was the star of a fake ass reality show. He's always cut corners, cheated and defrauded every chance he could, sues people over bullshit and is a tax cheat and a betrayer in his businesses and his private life. He's got 35% of the voting population conned--is dependent on religious fanatics, racists, the resentful of everything and the elderly. A lot of super wealthy love him too for his tax cuts to same.
The truth about Trump is he's a pathetic clown--he's been faking his way throughout his life. He was a lousy student, was bankrolled by his dad, he bankrupted a casino, ran a sham university and was the star of a fake ass reality show. He's always cut corners, cheated and defrauded every chance he could, sues people over bullshit and is a tax cheat and a betrayer in his businesses and his private life. He's got 35% of the voting population conned--is dependent on religious fanatics, racists, the resentful of everything and the elderly. A lot of super wealthy love him too for his tax cuts to same.
39proximity1
Well, I'm going to enjoy watching Trump contest the presidential race with Biden--whose campaign is now virtually on life-support, exposed as it is in all its morally-sordid "glory."
Idiot Democrats who can neither think straight nor read the national public mood correctly: shooting themselves in the head.
What's not to like?
This reminds me of Paris in 2002, where crowds were heard to shout, «Votez escroc (vote, that is, for Jacques Chirac), pas facho! (which is to say, not for candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen)»
LOL!
There is, of course, a little difference: Trump, in fact, is neither a crook nor a "facho". While Biden is a full-fledged family-style influence-peddler, "à la Clinton".
("Growing Uncertainty Looms Over Dems' 2020 Primary" |
By Steve Peoples, Alexandra Jaffe & Hunter Woodall |
October 28, 2019)...
"One elderly man sitting in the back of the room fell asleep as the former vice president shared his vision for America’s future in unusually hushed tones for nearly 45 minutes without taking questions.
"Afterward, David Metz, a member of the county Democratic committee, said that despite a campaign season that has already featured millions of dollars spent, countless miles logged and four debates staged, there is a deepening feeling of indecision among local voters who now have less than 100 days to finalize their 2020 pick.
" 'Nobody knows what to do,' Metz said. 'They’re all afraid. There’s a lot of anxiety.'
"In almost every campaign cycle, there comes a phase of indifference, fear and difficult questions. But in the 2020 cycle, Democratic officials hoped that the fervent desire to beat Trump would eventually lead to an enthusiastic embrace of its presidential field.
"The lack of enthusiasm for Biden’s candidacy underscores a broader trend emerging in the states that matter most in the Democratic Party’s high-stakes presidential nomination fight: Primary voters appear to be getting less certain of their choice as Election Day approaches.
"The historically large field, while in part of measure of the desire to oust the incumbent president, has also made it harder for the top contenders to forge a more focused contest. Nine Democrats so far have qualified for the party’s November debate and a dozen more are still fighting for attention. Among the top tier, the liabilities of Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, in particular — are becoming more visible as Iowa’s Feb. 3 caucuses approach." ...
Idiot Democrats who can neither think straight nor read the national public mood correctly: shooting themselves in the head.
What's not to like?
This reminds me of Paris in 2002, where crowds were heard to shout, «Votez escroc (vote, that is, for Jacques Chirac), pas facho! (which is to say, not for candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen)»
LOL!
There is, of course, a little difference: Trump, in fact, is neither a crook nor a "facho". While Biden is a full-fledged family-style influence-peddler, "à la Clinton".
40lriley
Poll after poll showing majorities supporting impeachment (maybe not large majorities....but still) and Prox says 'democrats can neither think straight nor read the national public mood correctly'---okay.
Then we have this gem--'Trump is neither a crook nor a fascist'. Actually he is both crook and fascist. It's not a neither nor.
Then we have this gem--'Trump is neither a crook nor a fascist'. Actually he is both crook and fascist. It's not a neither nor.
41John5918
Trump's attacks on whistleblower could do lasting damage to system, experts say (Guardian)
Various legal protections exist but the president’s aggressive response risks eroding a crucial check on official wrongdoing
Various legal protections exist but the president’s aggressive response risks eroding a crucial check on official wrongdoing
42krolik
There's been a ruling on the charity lawsuit.
43margd
>42 krolik: Trump's lawyers take position that he can't even be investigated much less indicted by state or federal authorities if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue. Yet a civil suit was successful? "...The lawsuit was filed in civil court. A spokeswoman for (NY Attorney General) Underwood said she did not have jurisdiction to seek criminal charges in cases involving nonprofits..."
Interesting that "The claims in the New York attorney general’s suit could trigger tax penalties by the IRS, according to tax-law experts, who noted that the Justice Department can also bring criminal charges when prosecutors believe tax-law violations are “willful.”" Guess we shouldn't hold breath that IRS and DOJ will act.
Congress probably has more than enough for impeachment without mining this tidbit: "(NY Attorney General) Underwood said, the foundation came to serve the spending needs of Trump — and then, in 2016, the needs of his presidential campaign. She cited emails from Trump campaign staff members — including then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski — directing which charities should receive gifts from the Trump Foundation, and in what amounts, in the lead-up to the crucial Iowa caucuses."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-york-files-suit-against-president-tr...
Interesting that "The claims in the New York attorney general’s suit could trigger tax penalties by the IRS, according to tax-law experts, who noted that the Justice Department can also bring criminal charges when prosecutors believe tax-law violations are “willful.”" Guess we shouldn't hold breath that IRS and DOJ will act.
Congress probably has more than enough for impeachment without mining this tidbit: "(NY Attorney General) Underwood said, the foundation came to serve the spending needs of Trump — and then, in 2016, the needs of his presidential campaign. She cited emails from Trump campaign staff members — including then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski — directing which charities should receive gifts from the Trump Foundation, and in what amounts, in the lead-up to the crucial Iowa caucuses."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-york-files-suit-against-president-tr...
44margd
...How worried should we be about a fundamental threat to democracy from the apparently large numbers of Americans who embrace chaos as a way of expressing their discontent? Might Trump and his loyal supporters seek to bring down the system if he is defeated in 2020? What about later, if the damage he has inflicted on our customs and norms festers, eroding the invisible structures that underpin everything that actually makes America great?
A political leader who thrives on chaos, relishes disorder and governs on the principle of narcissistic self-interest is virtually certain to find defeat intolerable. If voters deny Trump a second term, how many of his most ardent supporters, especially those with a “need for chaos,” will find defeat unbearable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump Voters Whose ‘Need for Chaos’ Obliterates Everything Else
Political nihilism is one of the president’s strongest weapons.
Thomas B. Edsall | Sept. 4, 2019
...at the (2019) annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, the winner of the best paper award in the Political Psychology division was “A ‘Need for Chaos’ and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies.”*
...those who are “drawn to chaos” (were identified) through their affirmative responses to the following statements:
I fantasize about a natural disaster wiping out most of humanity such that a small group of people can start all over.
I think society should be burned to the ground.
When I think about our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking “just let them all burn.”
We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.
Sometimes I just feel like destroying beautiful things.
... “the extreme discontent expressed in the ‘Need for Chaos’ scale is a minority view but it is a minority view with incredible amounts of support.”...24 percent agreed that society should be burned to the ground; 40 percent concurred with the thought that “When it comes to our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking ‘just let them all burn’ ”; and 40 percent also agreed that “we cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.”
...While Trump’s focus on disorder and chaos worked to his advantage during the 2016 campaign, there is no guarantee that he will benefit from it when he is an incumbent seeking re-election.
As the 2018 election demonstrated, Trump’s personally chaotic approach to governance, his record of undermining relations with allies and strengthening ties to autocrats; his use of trade policy to heighten market insecurity; his aggression, his recklessness, his incessant lying; and his sneering contemptuous, bullying style, together worked against him and the Republican Party.
...Bert Bakker, a professor of communication research at the University of Amsterdam and a member of the panel that awarded the A.P.S.A. prize..."It remains an open question whether those with higher chaotic motivations also turn their “motivations” into action. One could expect that those higher on chaotic motivations are more likely to protest and actually revolt against the political system. Moreover, I could see a role for chaotic motivations in understanding why people support populist politicians. Populist politicians share a message that the elites in, for instance Washington, Paris, Berlin and London, are corrupt, evil and self-centered. Perhaps this rhetoric resonates well with a tendency to like to see the democratic system go down."
The phrase “like to see the democratic system go down” is chilling — and raises the question: How worried should we be about a fundamental threat to democracy from the apparently large numbers of Americans who embrace chaos as a way of expressing their discontent? Might Trump and his loyal supporters seek to bring down the system if he is defeated in 2020? What about later, if the damage he has inflicted on our customs and norms festers, eroding the invisible structures that underpin everything that actually makes America great?
A political leader who thrives on chaos, relishes disorder and governs on the principle of narcissistic self-interest is virtually certain to find defeat intolerable. If voters deny Trump a second term, how many of his most ardent supporters, especially those with a “need for chaos,” will find defeat unbearable?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/trump-voters-chaos.html
_____________________________________________________________________
* Michael Bang Petersen et al. 2018. A “Need for Chaos” and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies. 42 pages. https://psyarxiv.com/6m4ts/
Abstract
The circulation of hostile political rumors (including but not limited to false news and conspiracy theories) has gained prominence in public debates across advanced democracies. Here, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of the psychological syndrome that elicits motivations to share hostile political rumors among citizens of democratic societies. Against the notion that sharing occurs to help one mainstream political actor in the increasingly polarized electoral competition against other mainstream actors, we demonstrate that sharing motivations are associated with ‘chaotic’ motivations to “burn down”
the entire established democratic ‘cosmos’. We show that this extreme discontent is associated with motivations to share hostile political rumors, not because such rumors are viewed to be true but because they are believed to mobilize the audience against
disliked elites. We introduce an individual difference measure, the “Need for Chaos”, to measure these motivations and illuminate their social causes, linked to frustrated status-seeking. Finally, we show that chaotic motivations are surprisingly widespread within advanced democracies, having some hold in up to 40 percent of the American national population.
A political leader who thrives on chaos, relishes disorder and governs on the principle of narcissistic self-interest is virtually certain to find defeat intolerable. If voters deny Trump a second term, how many of his most ardent supporters, especially those with a “need for chaos,” will find defeat unbearable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump Voters Whose ‘Need for Chaos’ Obliterates Everything Else
Political nihilism is one of the president’s strongest weapons.
Thomas B. Edsall | Sept. 4, 2019
...at the (2019) annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, the winner of the best paper award in the Political Psychology division was “A ‘Need for Chaos’ and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies.”*
...those who are “drawn to chaos” (were identified) through their affirmative responses to the following statements:
I fantasize about a natural disaster wiping out most of humanity such that a small group of people can start all over.
I think society should be burned to the ground.
When I think about our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking “just let them all burn.”
We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.
Sometimes I just feel like destroying beautiful things.
... “the extreme discontent expressed in the ‘Need for Chaos’ scale is a minority view but it is a minority view with incredible amounts of support.”...24 percent agreed that society should be burned to the ground; 40 percent concurred with the thought that “When it comes to our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking ‘just let them all burn’ ”; and 40 percent also agreed that “we cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.”
...While Trump’s focus on disorder and chaos worked to his advantage during the 2016 campaign, there is no guarantee that he will benefit from it when he is an incumbent seeking re-election.
As the 2018 election demonstrated, Trump’s personally chaotic approach to governance, his record of undermining relations with allies and strengthening ties to autocrats; his use of trade policy to heighten market insecurity; his aggression, his recklessness, his incessant lying; and his sneering contemptuous, bullying style, together worked against him and the Republican Party.
...Bert Bakker, a professor of communication research at the University of Amsterdam and a member of the panel that awarded the A.P.S.A. prize..."It remains an open question whether those with higher chaotic motivations also turn their “motivations” into action. One could expect that those higher on chaotic motivations are more likely to protest and actually revolt against the political system. Moreover, I could see a role for chaotic motivations in understanding why people support populist politicians. Populist politicians share a message that the elites in, for instance Washington, Paris, Berlin and London, are corrupt, evil and self-centered. Perhaps this rhetoric resonates well with a tendency to like to see the democratic system go down."
The phrase “like to see the democratic system go down” is chilling — and raises the question: How worried should we be about a fundamental threat to democracy from the apparently large numbers of Americans who embrace chaos as a way of expressing their discontent? Might Trump and his loyal supporters seek to bring down the system if he is defeated in 2020? What about later, if the damage he has inflicted on our customs and norms festers, eroding the invisible structures that underpin everything that actually makes America great?
A political leader who thrives on chaos, relishes disorder and governs on the principle of narcissistic self-interest is virtually certain to find defeat intolerable. If voters deny Trump a second term, how many of his most ardent supporters, especially those with a “need for chaos,” will find defeat unbearable?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/trump-voters-chaos.html
_____________________________________________________________________
* Michael Bang Petersen et al. 2018. A “Need for Chaos” and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies. 42 pages. https://psyarxiv.com/6m4ts/
Abstract
The circulation of hostile political rumors (including but not limited to false news and conspiracy theories) has gained prominence in public debates across advanced democracies. Here, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of the psychological syndrome that elicits motivations to share hostile political rumors among citizens of democratic societies. Against the notion that sharing occurs to help one mainstream political actor in the increasingly polarized electoral competition against other mainstream actors, we demonstrate that sharing motivations are associated with ‘chaotic’ motivations to “burn down”
the entire established democratic ‘cosmos’. We show that this extreme discontent is associated with motivations to share hostile political rumors, not because such rumors are viewed to be true but because they are believed to mobilize the audience against
disliked elites. We introduce an individual difference measure, the “Need for Chaos”, to measure these motivations and illuminate their social causes, linked to frustrated status-seeking. Finally, we show that chaotic motivations are surprisingly widespread within advanced democracies, having some hold in up to 40 percent of the American national population.
45margd
Excoriate = censure or criticize severely, Mr. President.
Judge slams feds over murky stance on McCabe
JOSH GERSTEIN | 11/14/2019
...(U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton), a George W. Bush appointee overseeing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by a watchdog group (CREW) to obtain records about ( former Deputy FBI Director Andrew) McCabe’s firing, complained at a hearing Thursday afternoon that the Justice Department claims about an ongoing potential prosecution of McCabe may have been a “smoke screen” to persuade the judge to forestall the case demanding documents.
...For about a year, the Justice Department has maintained that most of the records sought in the FOIA case were off-limits because of an ongoing enforcement action, widely believed to be the government’s investigation aimed at deciding whether to bring charges against McCabe for allegedly lying to FBI colleagues about contacts with the media prior to the 2016 presidential election.
...a campaign of public invective from President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denounced McCabe on Twitter, calling him a “major sleazebag” and celebrating his firing as “a great day for the FBI.”
On Wednesday, government lawyers reversed course in the FOIA suit and said they would no longer argue that records about the investigation into McCabe needed to be withheld because of a pending enforcement proceeding.
However, they remained circumspect about McCabe, further adding to the mystery about his status. That vagueness clearly fueled the judge’s concern that he might have been tricked into delaying the FOIA case with a spurious claim that charges against the former FBI official were still being mulled.
...After the closed-door session Thursday, Walton did not indicate publicly what had transpired, but ordered DOJ to start releasing the documents demanded in the case. He also indicated that he planned to unseal a declaration the Justice Department filed in March explaining the ongoing enforcement proceedings that justified withholding the records CREW requested.
In an interview earlier Thursday, McCabe said he’d still gotten no definitive word about the state of the criminal probe he faced, and he added that he wasn’t sure what to make of the government’s course change in the FOIA case.
“There’s certainly different ways you can interpret it,” McCabe told CNN’s John Berman. “I am still waiting to be told directly by the Justice Department that they have abandoned this completely baseless effort to try to charge me. I, of course, have not done anything wrong and … I'll be happy to get that call if and when it comes.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/andrew-mccabe-prosecution-uncertainty-0...
Judge slams feds over murky stance on McCabe
JOSH GERSTEIN | 11/14/2019
...(U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton), a George W. Bush appointee overseeing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by a watchdog group (CREW) to obtain records about ( former Deputy FBI Director Andrew) McCabe’s firing, complained at a hearing Thursday afternoon that the Justice Department claims about an ongoing potential prosecution of McCabe may have been a “smoke screen” to persuade the judge to forestall the case demanding documents.
...For about a year, the Justice Department has maintained that most of the records sought in the FOIA case were off-limits because of an ongoing enforcement action, widely believed to be the government’s investigation aimed at deciding whether to bring charges against McCabe for allegedly lying to FBI colleagues about contacts with the media prior to the 2016 presidential election.
...a campaign of public invective from President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denounced McCabe on Twitter, calling him a “major sleazebag” and celebrating his firing as “a great day for the FBI.”
On Wednesday, government lawyers reversed course in the FOIA suit and said they would no longer argue that records about the investigation into McCabe needed to be withheld because of a pending enforcement proceeding.
However, they remained circumspect about McCabe, further adding to the mystery about his status. That vagueness clearly fueled the judge’s concern that he might have been tricked into delaying the FOIA case with a spurious claim that charges against the former FBI official were still being mulled.
...After the closed-door session Thursday, Walton did not indicate publicly what had transpired, but ordered DOJ to start releasing the documents demanded in the case. He also indicated that he planned to unseal a declaration the Justice Department filed in March explaining the ongoing enforcement proceedings that justified withholding the records CREW requested.
In an interview earlier Thursday, McCabe said he’d still gotten no definitive word about the state of the criminal probe he faced, and he added that he wasn’t sure what to make of the government’s course change in the FOIA case.
“There’s certainly different ways you can interpret it,” McCabe told CNN’s John Berman. “I am still waiting to be told directly by the Justice Department that they have abandoned this completely baseless effort to try to charge me. I, of course, have not done anything wrong and … I'll be happy to get that call if and when it comes.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/andrew-mccabe-prosecution-uncertainty-0...
46John5918
>44 margd:
In some ways this post calls to mind a BBC article I saw this morning:
Australian bushfires: Why do people start fires during fires?
arsonists are often "odd", marginalised, and angry at society - "weird Pete down the road"...
That begins to explain why things get worse when there are already bushfires. People who are angry - and irrational - are happy to make things worse for people already suffering...
In some ways this post calls to mind a BBC article I saw this morning:
Australian bushfires: Why do people start fires during fires?
arsonists are often "odd", marginalised, and angry at society - "weird Pete down the road"...
That begins to explain why things get worse when there are already bushfires. People who are angry - and irrational - are happy to make things worse for people already suffering...
47Molly3028
America's founders had no way of knowing that their Electoral
College setup would create havoc in the 21st Century. The guy
who won the EC in 2016 is using that win as a license to turn the
country's founding documents into meaningless antiquities.
College setup would create havoc in the 21st Century. The guy
who won the EC in 2016 is using that win as a license to turn the
country's founding documents into meaningless antiquities.
492wonderY
David Frum wrote a compelling opinion piece on Trump's service member pardons:
There Will Be No Victory in Dishonor
None of the services seems happy with President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon two service members accused of war crimes, and reverse the demotion of a third. The Navy’s reply, however, sets some kind of record of disdain. The Twitter account of the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Information Office wrote on November 15: “As the Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to restore Special Warfare Operator First Class Gallagher to the pay grade of E-7. We acknowledge his order and are implementing it.”
Those icy words breathe the mood of the admonition from Band of Brothers: “We salute the rank, not the man.”
To understand why the Navy—and the other services, too—reacted so negatively to the pardons, here’s a story I heard on a visit to Germany a couple of months ago. I had the chance to talk with a senior U.S. officer in that country.
The officer had been posted all over the world during his long and distinguished career, but his very first overseas assignment took him to Stuttgart in 1983. The move into the apartment left behind a mess in the street: packing tape, that kind of thing. He knew how conscientious the Germans are about litter. But he had little children then and he was exhausted after the move, so he fell asleep intending to wake up early the next day to finish the job.
He did rise early, only to find that somebody had done the job for him. He interpreted this as passive-aggressive criticism by a neighbor, so he knocked on the next door to apologize. The door was answered by an older man who spoke clear, although strongly accented, English. Yes, the neighbor had cleaned up the mess. No, no apology was necessary. He had noticed that the officer had a young family, and he understood how difficult it was to move with children. The neighbor had wanted to extend a welcome, because he was a great admirer of the U.S. military.
“Where did you learn such good English?” asked the officer of his new friend.
“In Louisiana.”
“Do you have family there? A job?”
“No, I was a prisoner of war. I was captured in Tunisia in 1943.”
“I’m sorry you met America that way.”
“Don’t be. I ate better in America than I ever ate in the Afrika Korps. And I’m alive, which I would not be if I had not been captured. So when I see American soldiers, I always try to say, ‘Thank you.’”
The American officer who told me the story would later lead part of the cleanup effort at Abu Ghraib, after the exposure of maltreatment of prisoners there. He told his troops in Iraq: The way the U.S. Army had treated German POWs in 1943 paid security dividends for 40 years afterward. The way the Army treats its prisoners today will matter just as much 40 years from now.
The armed forces of the United States do their utmost to fight lawfully and humanely not only because it is the right thing to do. They do their utmost because it is also the smart thing to do. Every war ends. The memories from that war persist for decades.
War is horrible enough when fought honorably. To join dishonor to horror is no victory for any American cause.
There Will Be No Victory in Dishonor
None of the services seems happy with President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon two service members accused of war crimes, and reverse the demotion of a third. The Navy’s reply, however, sets some kind of record of disdain. The Twitter account of the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Information Office wrote on November 15: “As the Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to restore Special Warfare Operator First Class Gallagher to the pay grade of E-7. We acknowledge his order and are implementing it.”
Those icy words breathe the mood of the admonition from Band of Brothers: “We salute the rank, not the man.”
To understand why the Navy—and the other services, too—reacted so negatively to the pardons, here’s a story I heard on a visit to Germany a couple of months ago. I had the chance to talk with a senior U.S. officer in that country.
The officer had been posted all over the world during his long and distinguished career, but his very first overseas assignment took him to Stuttgart in 1983. The move into the apartment left behind a mess in the street: packing tape, that kind of thing. He knew how conscientious the Germans are about litter. But he had little children then and he was exhausted after the move, so he fell asleep intending to wake up early the next day to finish the job.
He did rise early, only to find that somebody had done the job for him. He interpreted this as passive-aggressive criticism by a neighbor, so he knocked on the next door to apologize. The door was answered by an older man who spoke clear, although strongly accented, English. Yes, the neighbor had cleaned up the mess. No, no apology was necessary. He had noticed that the officer had a young family, and he understood how difficult it was to move with children. The neighbor had wanted to extend a welcome, because he was a great admirer of the U.S. military.
“Where did you learn such good English?” asked the officer of his new friend.
“In Louisiana.”
“Do you have family there? A job?”
“No, I was a prisoner of war. I was captured in Tunisia in 1943.”
“I’m sorry you met America that way.”
“Don’t be. I ate better in America than I ever ate in the Afrika Korps. And I’m alive, which I would not be if I had not been captured. So when I see American soldiers, I always try to say, ‘Thank you.’”
The American officer who told me the story would later lead part of the cleanup effort at Abu Ghraib, after the exposure of maltreatment of prisoners there. He told his troops in Iraq: The way the U.S. Army had treated German POWs in 1943 paid security dividends for 40 years afterward. The way the Army treats its prisoners today will matter just as much 40 years from now.
The armed forces of the United States do their utmost to fight lawfully and humanely not only because it is the right thing to do. They do their utmost because it is also the smart thing to do. Every war ends. The memories from that war persist for decades.
War is horrible enough when fought honorably. To join dishonor to horror is no victory for any American cause.
50margd
Navy Wants to Eject From SEALs a Sailor Cleared by Trump, Officials Say
Dave Philipps | 11/19/2019
(Last week President Trump cleared the sailor, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, of any judicial punishment in the war crimes case (posing with corpse of ISIS member). Military leaders opposed that action as well as Mr. Trump’s pardons of two soldiers involved in other murder cases. They had planned earlier to take away Chief Gallagher’s Trident pin, the symbol of his membership in the SEALs, but action was not cleared by White House. Navy has now decided to proceed without WH clearance.)
...The Navy also plans to take the Tridents of three SEAL officers who oversaw Chief Gallagher — Lt. Cmdr. Robert Breisch, Lt. Jacob Portier and Lt. Thomas MacNeil...
Under Navy regulations, a SEAL’s Trident can be taken if a commander loses “faith and confidence in the service member’s ability to exercise sound judgment, reliability and personal conduct.” The Navy has removed 154 Tridents since 2011.
Removing a Trident does not entail a reduction in rank, but it effectively ends a SEAL’s career...
“To have a commander remove that pin after a guy has gone through so much to earn it, it is pretty much the worst thing you could do,” said Eric Deming, a retired senior chief who served 19 years in the SEALs. “You are having your whole identity taken away...Why would they do it to someone like Gallagher?...I think the leadership feels like they have lost the trust of the American people and want to rebuild it. So they are trying to show guys will be held accountable.”
The move sets up a potential confrontation between Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly championed Chief Gallagher, and (SEAL commander, Rear Adm. Collin Green), who has said he intends to overhaul discipline and ethics in the SEAL teams and sees Chief Gallagher’s behavior as an obstacle.
One Navy official who spoke about the specifics of the action said the admiral was making the move knowing that it could end his career, but that he had the backing of Adm. Michael M. Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and Richard V. Spencer, the secretary of the Navy...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-trident.html
ETA________________________________________________________________
Travis Akers @travisakers | 7:12 AM · Nov 22, 2019:
Navy officials are moving forward with removing Eddie Gallagher from the SEALs despite President Trump’s tweet.
The Navy does not consider a tweet an order and Gallagher’s defense attorney was notified Thursday that procedures are continuing unless further guidance is provided.
Replying to @travisakers:
TJP @favoritesch_tjp: Trump does not like POWs but he loves war criminals.
Rocky Mountain Views @RockyMountViews: Nor does he like non-citizens that have served in the US military with honor.
Dave Philipps | 11/19/2019
(Last week President Trump cleared the sailor, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, of any judicial punishment in the war crimes case (posing with corpse of ISIS member). Military leaders opposed that action as well as Mr. Trump’s pardons of two soldiers involved in other murder cases. They had planned earlier to take away Chief Gallagher’s Trident pin, the symbol of his membership in the SEALs, but action was not cleared by White House. Navy has now decided to proceed without WH clearance.)
...The Navy also plans to take the Tridents of three SEAL officers who oversaw Chief Gallagher — Lt. Cmdr. Robert Breisch, Lt. Jacob Portier and Lt. Thomas MacNeil...
Under Navy regulations, a SEAL’s Trident can be taken if a commander loses “faith and confidence in the service member’s ability to exercise sound judgment, reliability and personal conduct.” The Navy has removed 154 Tridents since 2011.
Removing a Trident does not entail a reduction in rank, but it effectively ends a SEAL’s career...
“To have a commander remove that pin after a guy has gone through so much to earn it, it is pretty much the worst thing you could do,” said Eric Deming, a retired senior chief who served 19 years in the SEALs. “You are having your whole identity taken away...Why would they do it to someone like Gallagher?...I think the leadership feels like they have lost the trust of the American people and want to rebuild it. So they are trying to show guys will be held accountable.”
The move sets up a potential confrontation between Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly championed Chief Gallagher, and (SEAL commander, Rear Adm. Collin Green), who has said he intends to overhaul discipline and ethics in the SEAL teams and sees Chief Gallagher’s behavior as an obstacle.
One Navy official who spoke about the specifics of the action said the admiral was making the move knowing that it could end his career, but that he had the backing of Adm. Michael M. Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and Richard V. Spencer, the secretary of the Navy...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-trident.html
ETA________________________________________________________________
Travis Akers @travisakers | 7:12 AM · Nov 22, 2019:
Navy officials are moving forward with removing Eddie Gallagher from the SEALs despite President Trump’s tweet.
The Navy does not consider a tweet an order and Gallagher’s defense attorney was notified Thursday that procedures are continuing unless further guidance is provided.
Replying to @travisakers:
TJP @favoritesch_tjp: Trump does not like POWs but he loves war criminals.
Rocky Mountain Views @RockyMountViews: Nor does he like non-citizens that have served in the US military with honor.
51margd
With impeachment, America’s epistemic crisis has arrived
David Roberts | Nov 16, 2019
...Right now, the right’s messaging machine is sputtering a bit, cycling through defenses — it didn’t happen, Trump’s not competent enough to do it, it was a failed quid pro quo so it doesn’t count, he did it but it’s not impeachable — that contradict one another from day to day.
Can the machine successfully hold the right-wing base in an alternate reality and throw up enough fog to keep the general public at bay for long enough to get through the next election? It seems challenging, given the facts on record, but this is just the sort of challenge the machine was built for.
Let’s quickly review how we got here.
The rise of tribal epistemology...
Republicans need to maintain doubt and prevent consensus...
The right has hacked the cognitive biases of voters and reporters...
Impeachment is make or break time for America’s epistemic health...
...As congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned in 2012, the GOP as become “an insurgent outlier: ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
The machine was primed and waiting for someone like Trump. Now, with his erratic and indefensible conduct, he is accelerating the breach, pushing the right into ever-more cult-like behavior, principles laid aside one after another in service of power.
That is what a tribalist like Trump wants: for communication and compromise across tribal lines to become impossible, so that loyalty becomes the only measure and everything is reduced to pure struggle for dominance. If he makes it through impeachment unscathed, he and the right will have learned once and for all that facts and evidence have no hold on them. Both “sides” have free rein to choose the facts and evidence that suit them. Only power matters.
If the right’s epistemic break becomes final and irreparable, as impeachment threatens, then no matter what happens in the next election, American democracy is in for a long spell of trouble.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/16/20964281/impeachment-hearings...
David Roberts | Nov 16, 2019
...Right now, the right’s messaging machine is sputtering a bit, cycling through defenses — it didn’t happen, Trump’s not competent enough to do it, it was a failed quid pro quo so it doesn’t count, he did it but it’s not impeachable — that contradict one another from day to day.
Can the machine successfully hold the right-wing base in an alternate reality and throw up enough fog to keep the general public at bay for long enough to get through the next election? It seems challenging, given the facts on record, but this is just the sort of challenge the machine was built for.
Let’s quickly review how we got here.
The rise of tribal epistemology...
Republicans need to maintain doubt and prevent consensus...
The right has hacked the cognitive biases of voters and reporters...
Impeachment is make or break time for America’s epistemic health...
...As congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned in 2012, the GOP as become “an insurgent outlier: ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
The machine was primed and waiting for someone like Trump. Now, with his erratic and indefensible conduct, he is accelerating the breach, pushing the right into ever-more cult-like behavior, principles laid aside one after another in service of power.
That is what a tribalist like Trump wants: for communication and compromise across tribal lines to become impossible, so that loyalty becomes the only measure and everything is reduced to pure struggle for dominance. If he makes it through impeachment unscathed, he and the right will have learned once and for all that facts and evidence have no hold on them. Both “sides” have free rein to choose the facts and evidence that suit them. Only power matters.
If the right’s epistemic break becomes final and irreparable, as impeachment threatens, then no matter what happens in the next election, American democracy is in for a long spell of trouble.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/16/20964281/impeachment-hearings...
52John5918
Is Trump turning the US military into a protection racket? (Al Jazeera)
US President Donald Trump has been asking allies to pay billions more for hosting US bases in their countries...
US President Donald Trump has been asking allies to pay billions more for hosting US bases in their countries...
532wonderY
Final, final Republican defense strategy for Trump: Don the tinfoil, join the conspiracy
Over the weekend, it was reported that the White House hosted a meeting with Republican senators — including Graham, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana — literally so they could literally work with Trump on strategy for an impending impeachment trial.
Hilariously, many Republican senators, when asked about impeachment, have avoided comment by making claims that they need to remain impartial because they will serve as jurors for such a trial. But these models of impartiality think nothing of working with the defendant on a strategy to justify the predetermined outcome.
The favor-buying is right out in the open. As the Washington Post has put it, Trump is using Camp David, a taxpayer-funded presidential retreat, as what a "playground" for Republican congressmen to. Using your money and mine, Trump is treating these supposed representatives of the people to a luxury vacation, and then leaning on them to help him escape accountability for his criminal behavior.
Over the weekend, it was reported that the White House hosted a meeting with Republican senators — including Graham, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana — literally so they could literally work with Trump on strategy for an impending impeachment trial.
Hilariously, many Republican senators, when asked about impeachment, have avoided comment by making claims that they need to remain impartial because they will serve as jurors for such a trial. But these models of impartiality think nothing of working with the defendant on a strategy to justify the predetermined outcome.
The favor-buying is right out in the open. As the Washington Post has put it, Trump is using Camp David, a taxpayer-funded presidential retreat, as what a "playground" for Republican congressmen to. Using your money and mine, Trump is treating these supposed representatives of the people to a luxury vacation, and then leaning on them to help him escape accountability for his criminal behavior.
54proximity1
edited ........ Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 07:49 a.m.
last updated ...... Wednesday, 27 November 2019
_____________________________
>53 2wonderY:
No. In fact, here's what's hilarious:
You write as though you are not even aware that not a single Republican U.S. senator has declared openly any intention of considering voting in favor of Trump's conviction.
The reason is obvious: Democrats have demonstrated one and only one thing: there simply is no basis for any charge of an impeachable offense against Trump; and this is so clear that, rather than there being some question of a Republican U.S. senator voting to convict, the serious question now is not only
"how many Democrats may vote 'not guilty' at the Senate conclusion of this farce and outrage to the Constitution's principles?"—assuming, that is, that there's a successful vote to impeach in the House of Representatives which is then referred to the Senate—but, indeed,
"How many Democrats in the House shall find themselves with too much respect for law and Constitution to even vote to impeach Trump on such a shabby pretext?"
_________________
UPDATED : for example:
... "Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan" ...
"Lawrence appeared on the Michigan radio show No BS News Hour with host Charlie LeDuff on Sunday to discuss the impeachment process in the House. Lawrence told LeDuff, to his surprise, that she does not support removing the president from office and that she would ask her caucus to censure him instead.
" 'We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office,' Lawrence said. 'I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.'
"She continued, 'I want to censure. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it.' " *... ...
...
from: The Washington Examiner, "House Democrat backs down from impeachment": 'I don't see the value of kicking him out of office' | by Tim Pearce | November 25, 2019 07:59 PM
By the way: though the Constitution provides that, if impeached by the House of Representatives, the examination of the charges and the determination of any guilt ensuing from them is formally the responsibility of the Senate of the United States—the president is (for legal and procedural purposes) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty—there is no strict requirement in the Constitution's text which obliges the Senators to go through a trial process which includes calling witnesses, taking testimony and subjecting the witnesses to examination and cross-examination by counsel for and against the president.
No. Rather, and legally, if a sufficient number of Senators had already concluded that, based on what they'd already seen and read in the press, there was simply no respectable case at all having been made in the House's vote of articles of impeachment, they could skip straight to a vote on a motion to acquit on the grounds that the House had failed to make any case deserving of examination in the Senate.
This, in effect, would amount to a de facto and pro forma rebuke of the House of Representatives by the Senate for what would be "wasting the Senate's (and the American public's) time, money and resources” in a vain and utterly partisan effort in the first place—an effort to reverse the result of the 2016 election simply to get rid of the president because they were so indignant at seeing the Electoral college produce such a result. In other words, they're infantile and spoiled—in addition to being morally corrupt.
__________________________________
Impeachment inquiry: It's a question of who should run the show | By Sharyl Attkisson, opinion contributor — 11/25/19 09:00 AM EST |
(The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill )
_______________________
*
'I want to censure. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it.' " ...
In the fullness of time, the record is going to be very, very clear: in this matter, it is the House of Representatives and, among their membership, the Democratic party leadership and its rank-and-file caucus which has disgraced itself, not President Trump.
Michigan Rep. Lawrence came very late to the recognition that impeachment is not the proper course. Before coming late to that understanding, she first supported the impeachment effort. The shame is hers and, clearly, she still cannot admit that to us because she still sees its truth only rather dimly. But, however dimly, sense it she does: why else would she now have gotten a case--the first I have heard about--of impeachment "cold-feet"?
Her's won't be the last.
55John5918
Donald Trump falls out with the military establishment he once wooed (Economist)
The controversy over a disgraced Navy SEAL highlights a wider crisis in civil-military relations...
The controversy over a disgraced Navy SEAL highlights a wider crisis in civil-military relations...
56margd
Only Poutine could be pleased by his puppet's latest--certainly not America's allies and friends.
My dad (Cdn military) had his concerns about the US military, but had only good things to say about its Navy:
Navy Lets Accused SEALs Stay In Elite Unit; Fired Navy Secretary Slams Trump
Jason Beaubien Tom Bowman Steve Walsh | November 27, 2019
...Former Navy Secretary Spencer says in his op-ed that military discipline works best when senior leadership stays out of it.
"Our system of military justice has helped build the world's most powerful navy; good leaders get promoted, bad ones get moved out, and criminals are punished," Spencer writes.
He adds that ethical conduct and the military justice system that enforces it are hallmarks of the U.S. military.
"We are effective overseas," Spencer says. "Not because we have the best equipment but because we are professionals."
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783515686/navy-lets-accused-seals-stay-in-elite-u...
My dad (Cdn military) had his concerns about the US military, but had only good things to say about its Navy:
Navy Lets Accused SEALs Stay In Elite Unit; Fired Navy Secretary Slams Trump
Jason Beaubien Tom Bowman Steve Walsh | November 27, 2019
...Former Navy Secretary Spencer says in his op-ed that military discipline works best when senior leadership stays out of it.
"Our system of military justice has helped build the world's most powerful navy; good leaders get promoted, bad ones get moved out, and criminals are punished," Spencer writes.
He adds that ethical conduct and the military justice system that enforces it are hallmarks of the U.S. military.
"We are effective overseas," Spencer says. "Not because we have the best equipment but because we are professionals."
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783515686/navy-lets-accused-seals-stay-in-elite-u...
57lriley
Gallagher not only fell afoul of war crimes but of the UCMJ. Military Justice is different from civilian justice. It is stricter and calls on its service members to abide by certain codes of conduct. Military courts have always maintained their separateness from civilian courts. Anyone going into boot camp is told about the differences between his/her current military and former civilian legal status over and over to the point of nauseum and I would think that practically everyone who has done a two or four year enlistment will have at least a couple stories about how military justice is applied--will have a good idea what a court martial or a captain's mast is about. When you screw up in the military penalties tend to be a lot harsher. Trump here has taken an unprecedented step as a civilian into a military court proceeding. It's uncharted waters shit and once again it's his uncomprehending and ignorant instincts that have led him into something. I don't know how much this will cost him when all is said and done but I do know this kind of interference is not appreciated.
Donald Trump is flat out stupid.
Donald Trump is flat out stupid.
58John5918
UK PM Johnson implores Trump: please avoid the election (Reuters)
"What we don't do traditionally as loving allies and friends, what we don't do traditionally, is get involved in each other's election campaigns," said Johnson...
"The best (thing) when you have close friends and allies like the U.S. and the UK is for neither side to get involved in each other's election."
Trump has already waded into the election, saying in October left-wing opposition leader Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, would be "so bad" for Britain and that Johnson should do a pact with Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage.
Corbyn has used Trump's praise of Johnson as one of his focal messages to attack the Conservatives in his campaign, saying they would sell off parts of the much-loved state-run National Health Service to the U.S. businesses after Brexit if they win the election.
"What we don't do traditionally as loving allies and friends, what we don't do traditionally, is get involved in each other's election campaigns," said Johnson...
"The best (thing) when you have close friends and allies like the U.S. and the UK is for neither side to get involved in each other's election."
Trump has already waded into the election, saying in October left-wing opposition leader Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, would be "so bad" for Britain and that Johnson should do a pact with Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage.
Corbyn has used Trump's praise of Johnson as one of his focal messages to attack the Conservatives in his campaign, saying they would sell off parts of the much-loved state-run National Health Service to the U.S. businesses after Brexit if they win the election.
59margd
Wow! That makes TWO Inspectors General who recently have stood up to the Trumpian alternate-reality train!
Barr disputes key inspector general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation
Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian | Dec. 2, 2019
Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign...
...Barr’s public defenses of President Trump, including his assertion that intelligence agents spied on the Trump campaign, have led Democrats to accuse him of acting like the president’s personal attorney and eroding the independence of the Justice Department. But Trump and his Republican allies have cheered Barr’s skepticism of the Russia investigation...
...Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement that the inspector general investigation “is a credit to the Department of Justice. His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves. Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
...The inspector general operates independently of Justice Department leadership, so Barr cannot order Horowitz to change his findings...
...the draft report found that the investigation was opened on a solid legal and factual footing...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-doesnt-accept-key-inspecto...
Barr disputes key inspector general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation
Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian | Dec. 2, 2019
Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign...
...Barr’s public defenses of President Trump, including his assertion that intelligence agents spied on the Trump campaign, have led Democrats to accuse him of acting like the president’s personal attorney and eroding the independence of the Justice Department. But Trump and his Republican allies have cheered Barr’s skepticism of the Russia investigation...
...Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement that the inspector general investigation “is a credit to the Department of Justice. His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves. Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
...The inspector general operates independently of Justice Department leadership, so Barr cannot order Horowitz to change his findings...
...the draft report found that the investigation was opened on a solid legal and factual footing...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-doesnt-accept-key-inspecto...
60margd
The Supreme Court just jumped into the political deep end with Trump taxes lawsuit
Joan Biskupic | December 13, 2019
Washington (CNN)On the same day that a Democratic-led US House committee voted for articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court...agreed to resolve in spring 2020 if a sitting president should be immune from any criminal proceeding, whether related to conduct before taking office or even -- to use Trump's famed example -- shooting someone on Fifth Avenue in New York. The high court also said it would determine the oversight authority of Congress in paired disputes arising from attempts by House Democrats to obtain Trump's financial documents.
...Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to carefully navigate Trump-related litigation and regularly declares that the justices are above politics.
...rulings that would come by the end of June, when the justices traditionally recess for the summer, and just as the 2020 presidential election is intensifying.
None of the three cases involve Trump's official actions as President. They trace to his business dealings before taking office, such as possibly directing "hush money" to women who have claimed they had affairs with him.
...lower court judges grounded their decisions against Trump in decades-old Supreme Court precedent that would allow a President to be subpoenaed or sued. So, any reversal would be startling.
...the Supreme Court's brief order on Friday signals that at least four justices -- the number required to grant a case a hearing -- believe Trump has a legitimate claim in his assertions that a president should be protected from state investigation while in office and similarly shielded from broad congressional oversight.
...lawyers for the US House noted that House members are elected for two-year terms, so further delays (Mazars case) would "prevent the people's representatives from carrying out their constitutional duties in the limited remaining time they possess."
Trump's lawyers countered that if the high court failed to intervene, elected officials would use their subpoena authority to try to find "dirt" on political rivals...
By the time the justices take up these cases, any House impeachment and Senate trial would be over.
In the New York grand jury case, testing a subpoena sought by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Trump's lawyers have asserted that he is absolutely immune from any criminal investigation -- not only from indictment, which had been common understanding -- while he holds office....
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/supreme-court-trump-impeachment-taxes-se...
_______________________________________________________
David Frum @davidfrum | 8:37 AM · Dec 14, 2019:
As Trump's records case goes to Supreme Court, the president reminds a justice that the justice owes him
Quote Tweet
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 2h
After watching the disgraceful way that a wonderful man, @BrettKavanaugh, was treated by the Democrats,
and now seeing first hand how these same Radical Left, Do Nothing Dems are treating the whole Impeachment Hoax,
I understand why so many Dems are voting Republican!
Joan Biskupic | December 13, 2019
Washington (CNN)On the same day that a Democratic-led US House committee voted for articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court...agreed to resolve in spring 2020 if a sitting president should be immune from any criminal proceeding, whether related to conduct before taking office or even -- to use Trump's famed example -- shooting someone on Fifth Avenue in New York. The high court also said it would determine the oversight authority of Congress in paired disputes arising from attempts by House Democrats to obtain Trump's financial documents.
...Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to carefully navigate Trump-related litigation and regularly declares that the justices are above politics.
...rulings that would come by the end of June, when the justices traditionally recess for the summer, and just as the 2020 presidential election is intensifying.
None of the three cases involve Trump's official actions as President. They trace to his business dealings before taking office, such as possibly directing "hush money" to women who have claimed they had affairs with him.
...lower court judges grounded their decisions against Trump in decades-old Supreme Court precedent that would allow a President to be subpoenaed or sued. So, any reversal would be startling.
...the Supreme Court's brief order on Friday signals that at least four justices -- the number required to grant a case a hearing -- believe Trump has a legitimate claim in his assertions that a president should be protected from state investigation while in office and similarly shielded from broad congressional oversight.
...lawyers for the US House noted that House members are elected for two-year terms, so further delays (Mazars case) would "prevent the people's representatives from carrying out their constitutional duties in the limited remaining time they possess."
Trump's lawyers countered that if the high court failed to intervene, elected officials would use their subpoena authority to try to find "dirt" on political rivals...
By the time the justices take up these cases, any House impeachment and Senate trial would be over.
In the New York grand jury case, testing a subpoena sought by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Trump's lawyers have asserted that he is absolutely immune from any criminal investigation -- not only from indictment, which had been common understanding -- while he holds office....
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/supreme-court-trump-impeachment-taxes-se...
_______________________________________________________
David Frum @davidfrum | 8:37 AM · Dec 14, 2019:
As Trump's records case goes to Supreme Court, the president reminds a justice that the justice owes him
Quote Tweet
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 2h
After watching the disgraceful way that a wonderful man, @BrettKavanaugh, was treated by the Democrats,
and now seeing first hand how these same Radical Left, Do Nothing Dems are treating the whole Impeachment Hoax,
I understand why so many Dems are voting Republican!
61John5918
Judge stymies Trump's border wall by invoking GOP law targeting Obama (Politico)
President Donald Trump’s border wall is facing a surprising new legal hurdle down in Texas: an obscure legislative provision crafted by House Republicans in 2014 when the GOP was targeting then-President Barack Obama’s budget powers.
The amendment, carried forward into current law, has resurfaced with a vengeance in El Paso, Texas. U.S District Court Judge David Briones has been quoting back its words in a series of rulings against Trump’s decision to take $3.6 billion from military construction projects to expedite his wall.
As first adopted, the Republican language specifically prohibited Obama from taking any step to “eliminate or reduce funding for any program, project, or activity as proposed in the President’s budget request” until it's cleared with Congress.
The triggering event was a relatively narrow dispute in 2013 over funding for space exploration. But when they were enacted in Jan. 2014, the restrictions applied government-wide. And a year later, under full Republican control, Congress added the word “increase” alongside “eliminate or reduce” funding.
What goes around, in other words, comes around.
But what’s most remarkable is how much the legislative phrasing — aimed squarely at Obama — applies directly to the current fight involving Trump.
First, it was Trump’s own budgets that asked Congress to fund many of the same military construction projects, for which appropriations were reduced or eliminated by his spending transfers. Second, Trump took the money unilaterally in order to increase funding for his wall to a level above what he had first requested in his budget...
President Donald Trump’s border wall is facing a surprising new legal hurdle down in Texas: an obscure legislative provision crafted by House Republicans in 2014 when the GOP was targeting then-President Barack Obama’s budget powers.
The amendment, carried forward into current law, has resurfaced with a vengeance in El Paso, Texas. U.S District Court Judge David Briones has been quoting back its words in a series of rulings against Trump’s decision to take $3.6 billion from military construction projects to expedite his wall.
As first adopted, the Republican language specifically prohibited Obama from taking any step to “eliminate or reduce funding for any program, project, or activity as proposed in the President’s budget request” until it's cleared with Congress.
The triggering event was a relatively narrow dispute in 2013 over funding for space exploration. But when they were enacted in Jan. 2014, the restrictions applied government-wide. And a year later, under full Republican control, Congress added the word “increase” alongside “eliminate or reduce” funding.
What goes around, in other words, comes around.
But what’s most remarkable is how much the legislative phrasing — aimed squarely at Obama — applies directly to the current fight involving Trump.
First, it was Trump’s own budgets that asked Congress to fund many of the same military construction projects, for which appropriations were reduced or eliminated by his spending transfers. Second, Trump took the money unilaterally in order to increase funding for his wall to a level above what he had first requested in his budget...
622wonderY
>61 John5918: U.S District Court Judge David Briones has made my day!
63margd
The Impeachment Process Is Barely Functioning
Elizabeth Drew | Dec. 15, 2019
Hyperpartisan politics and an implacable president may break Congress’s ability to check him.
...unless our political system undergoes a radical change, we could be on the brink of having no check on the president, no matter how radically he defies the Constitution. Had a whistle-blower not raised concerns, and had those brave State Department witnesses not testified before Congress despite the president’s admonitions not to, the House Democrats would have had too little validation for their effort to bring charges. And then, because Mr. Trump’s hold over Senate Republicans seems almost cultlike, he is all but certain to be acquitted at the trial early next year...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/opinion/impeachment-trump.html
Elizabeth Drew | Dec. 15, 2019
Hyperpartisan politics and an implacable president may break Congress’s ability to check him.
...unless our political system undergoes a radical change, we could be on the brink of having no check on the president, no matter how radically he defies the Constitution. Had a whistle-blower not raised concerns, and had those brave State Department witnesses not testified before Congress despite the president’s admonitions not to, the House Democrats would have had too little validation for their effort to bring charges. And then, because Mr. Trump’s hold over Senate Republicans seems almost cultlike, he is all but certain to be acquitted at the trial early next year...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/opinion/impeachment-trump.html
64John5918
Authoritarian leaders thrive on fear. We need to help people feel safe (Guardian)
Wasn't sure where to post this. It could be relevant to several threads, including the one on mass shootings (some of our regular posters have bought into the fearful narrative that they need a gun to keep themselves safe from all those threats out there) or the Iran thread (the great USA needs to fear Iran and thus commit pre-emptive assassination of its generals), etc. But here is as good a place as any, in a thread about the erosion of democratic institutions.
Incidentally, for those who object to foreigners discussing the USA, this piece is authored by Michele Gelfand, "a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of Maryland". That's in the USA, I believe.
Wasn't sure where to post this. It could be relevant to several threads, including the one on mass shootings (some of our regular posters have bought into the fearful narrative that they need a gun to keep themselves safe from all those threats out there) or the Iran thread (the great USA needs to fear Iran and thus commit pre-emptive assassination of its generals), etc. But here is as good a place as any, in a thread about the erosion of democratic institutions.
Across the world, voters are falling prey to leaders who appeal to their worst instincts. Why?...
the rising tide of rightwing populism, nationalism and polarisation across the world. Within just a few years, we’ve witnessed the election of Donald Trump in the US, the Brexit decision in the UK, the rise of Matteo Salvini in Italy, Victor Orbán in Hungary, the Freedom party in Austria and the Law and Justice party in Poland. The world’s largest democracy, India, is menaced by a newly virulent nationalism and xenophobia.
For a long time I wondered what explained the appeal of these apparently fringe movements that, in my view, had accidentally gone mainstream. They seemed like the exception to a general rule of progression towards, not away from, democratic norms. But this year I came to a different conclusion: it’s democracy that is a precious exception to the rule, and one that is extremely fragile, for a simple reason: the human craving for order and security when chaos feels imminent.
The philosopher and psychologist Erich Fromm first identified this predicament in his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom. The gist of it is this: when people perceive an increase in disorder, they feel tremendous anxiety. Inevitably, this anxiety leads to a quest for security. To bring a sense of safety back into their lives, they latch on to authoritarianism and conformity. As Fromm noted, this often leads to “a readiness to accept any ideology and any leader if only he offers a political structure and symbols which allegedly give meaning and order to an individual’s life”. He had observed this in Germany, which he fled in 1933: “Modern man still is anxious and tempted to surrender his freedom to dictators of all kinds,” he wrote...
insecurity is linked to the rise of autocrats and the erosion of democracy... people who felt threatened wanted to tighten up – to have stricter rules – which predicted their support for Trump or Le Pen in the US and France, respectively... It’s a simple principle, one that is causing democracies all around the world to unravel. When people experience threat – whether actual or imagined – they begin to “tighten”... In political terms, they begin to crave security and order in a community that seems to be collapsing. Authoritarian leaders satiate this need by promising quick, simple solutions – and, above all, a return to the tighter social order of yesteryear. Leaders are aware of this basic psychology and exaggerate threats to gain popularity. Trump did so masterfully...
Ironically, many real threats – including violence and disease – have declined precipitously over the years, but manufactured or imaginary threats still persist. Now more than ever, we need to develop ways to counter the misperceptions that are beginning to upend democracies. We can’t take those fragile political arrangements for granted. It is not primarily a question of weeding out particular personalities or reversing regrettable decisions, but addressing the things that made them attractive in the first place: that pervasive sense of rising threat.
Incidentally, for those who object to foreigners discussing the USA, this piece is authored by Michele Gelfand, "a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of Maryland". That's in the USA, I believe.
65margd
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that
should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back,
& perhaps in a disproportionate manner.
Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
-Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 3:25 PM · Jan 5, 2020
OH MY FUCKING GOD HE’S USING HIS PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT TO NOTIFY CONGRESS OF WAR????
-AltUSCustoms @alt_uscbp |3:43 PM · Jan 5, 2020
should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back,
& perhaps in a disproportionate manner.
Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
-Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 3:25 PM · Jan 5, 2020
OH MY FUCKING GOD HE’S USING HIS PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT TO NOTIFY CONGRESS OF WAR????
-AltUSCustoms @alt_uscbp |3:43 PM · Jan 5, 2020
66margd
GOP senator who erupted over Iran briefing shares awful new details
Greg Sargent | Jan. 9, 2020 a
If President Trump made the decision to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, would he need to come to Congress to get authorization for it?
The Trump administration won’t say.
That remarkable claim is now being made by a Republican senator — Mike Lee of Utah. He offered it in a new interview with NPR, in which he shared fresh details about why he erupted in anger on Wednesday over the briefing Congress received from the administration on Iran...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/09/gop-senator-who-erupted-over-...
Greg Sargent | Jan. 9, 2020 a
If President Trump made the decision to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, would he need to come to Congress to get authorization for it?
The Trump administration won’t say.
That remarkable claim is now being made by a Republican senator — Mike Lee of Utah. He offered it in a new interview with NPR, in which he shared fresh details about why he erupted in anger on Wednesday over the briefing Congress received from the administration on Iran...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/09/gop-senator-who-erupted-over-...
67margd
Congressional machinations to limit military action in/against Iran in spite of McConnell and Trump:
House votes to limit Trump's military action against Iran without congressional approval
Clare Foran and Haley Byrd | January 9, 2020
...The vote was 224-194. Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Francis Rooney of Florida crossed party lines to vote in favor while Democratic Reps. Max Rose of New York, Ben McAdams of Utah, Anthony Brindisi of New York, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Stephanie Murphy of Florida voted against the resolution.
Now that the resolution has passed the House it will next go to the Senate.
Freshman Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and senior Defense Department official, is the sponsor of the resolution, which calls on the President "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran" unless Congress declares war or enacts "specific statutory authorization" for the use of armed forces.
...The House resolution states that "when the United States military force, the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force."
It also states that "Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran."
...It was introduced as a concurrent resolution, a type of resolution often used for "sense of Congress" bills. They don't go to the President for a signature, and they aren't legally binding.
...Democratic leaders spent time Wednesday working out how to ensure the House version of the Iran War Powers resolution will also get a vote in the Senate...Unlike joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions are not able to be amended in a floor process known as a motion to recommit. Motions to recommit are the last opportunity for the House to debate and amend a given measure before final passage.
Republicans, because they are in the minority, often use motions to recommit to hold votes on amendments that put Democratic members on the spot, or to try to change the purpose of Democratic legislation. Sometimes the amendments are unrelated to the substance of the bills themselves. These votes almost always fall on party lines, but sometimes the amendments are popular enough to pass, despite Democratic leadership's efforts to keep members in line
...amendment(s may not be) relevant to the...resolution (and can be) stripped...of its privileged status in the Senate.
Without privileged status, Republican leaders in the Senate are able to ignore the bill and are under no obligation to take it up for a vote. House Democrats wanted to avoid such an outcome
...Republicans and Democrats have vastly different views on whether the House Iran war powers resolution is legally binding.
House Democrats are arguing that concurrent resolutions under the War Powers Act are a special case, and they are legally binding...the question has not been tested in the courts.
...In the Senate, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced his own war powers resolution last week along with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. The measure is privileged, which means that the Republican-controlled Senate will have to hold a vote.
The resolution directs the President to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran no later than 30 days after the resolution is enacted absent a declaration of war by Congress or passage of a new authorization for use of military force, a type of measure that lawmakers can approve to green-light military action.
...In their effort to restrain US conflict with Iran, congressional Democrats are invoking the War Powers Resolution, otherwise known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act.
The War Powers Act stipulates parameters of presidential and congressional war powers, including imposing procedural requirements to ensure that presidents keep Congress apprised of military decisions as well as provisions that provide Congress with a mechanism to suspend military operations initiated by the President in certain circumstances.
It was enacted after Congress overrode a veto from then-President Richard Nixon and is aimed at reining in a president's authority to engage the US in military action without congressional approval.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/house-vote-war-powers-resolution-iran/in...
__________________________________________________________________________
Justin Amash @justinamash | 11:48 PM · Jan 9, 2020:
“We don’t know when and where. But it was real.”
This is about as much as they told Congress in a classified setting.
Quote Tweet
Manu Raju @mkraju · 7h
Pompeo tonight on Fox on the “imminent” nature of the threat posed by Soleimani:
“There is no doubt there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted. We don’t know when and where. But it was real.”
House votes to limit Trump's military action against Iran without congressional approval
Clare Foran and Haley Byrd | January 9, 2020
...The vote was 224-194. Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Francis Rooney of Florida crossed party lines to vote in favor while Democratic Reps. Max Rose of New York, Ben McAdams of Utah, Anthony Brindisi of New York, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Stephanie Murphy of Florida voted against the resolution.
Now that the resolution has passed the House it will next go to the Senate.
Freshman Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and senior Defense Department official, is the sponsor of the resolution, which calls on the President "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran" unless Congress declares war or enacts "specific statutory authorization" for the use of armed forces.
...The House resolution states that "when the United States military force, the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force."
It also states that "Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran."
...It was introduced as a concurrent resolution, a type of resolution often used for "sense of Congress" bills. They don't go to the President for a signature, and they aren't legally binding.
...Democratic leaders spent time Wednesday working out how to ensure the House version of the Iran War Powers resolution will also get a vote in the Senate...Unlike joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions are not able to be amended in a floor process known as a motion to recommit. Motions to recommit are the last opportunity for the House to debate and amend a given measure before final passage.
Republicans, because they are in the minority, often use motions to recommit to hold votes on amendments that put Democratic members on the spot, or to try to change the purpose of Democratic legislation. Sometimes the amendments are unrelated to the substance of the bills themselves. These votes almost always fall on party lines, but sometimes the amendments are popular enough to pass, despite Democratic leadership's efforts to keep members in line
...amendment(s may not be) relevant to the...resolution (and can be) stripped...of its privileged status in the Senate.
Without privileged status, Republican leaders in the Senate are able to ignore the bill and are under no obligation to take it up for a vote. House Democrats wanted to avoid such an outcome
...Republicans and Democrats have vastly different views on whether the House Iran war powers resolution is legally binding.
House Democrats are arguing that concurrent resolutions under the War Powers Act are a special case, and they are legally binding...the question has not been tested in the courts.
...In the Senate, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced his own war powers resolution last week along with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. The measure is privileged, which means that the Republican-controlled Senate will have to hold a vote.
The resolution directs the President to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran no later than 30 days after the resolution is enacted absent a declaration of war by Congress or passage of a new authorization for use of military force, a type of measure that lawmakers can approve to green-light military action.
...In their effort to restrain US conflict with Iran, congressional Democrats are invoking the War Powers Resolution, otherwise known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act.
The War Powers Act stipulates parameters of presidential and congressional war powers, including imposing procedural requirements to ensure that presidents keep Congress apprised of military decisions as well as provisions that provide Congress with a mechanism to suspend military operations initiated by the President in certain circumstances.
It was enacted after Congress overrode a veto from then-President Richard Nixon and is aimed at reining in a president's authority to engage the US in military action without congressional approval.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/house-vote-war-powers-resolution-iran/in...
__________________________________________________________________________
Justin Amash @justinamash | 11:48 PM · Jan 9, 2020:
“We don’t know when and where. But it was real.”
This is about as much as they told Congress in a classified setting.
Quote Tweet
Manu Raju @mkraju · 7h
Pompeo tonight on Fox on the “imminent” nature of the threat posed by Soleimani:
“There is no doubt there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted. We don’t know when and where. But it was real.”
68margd
When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren’t even at war with?
Jim Webb | Jan. 9, 2020
...How did it become acceptable to assassinate one of the top military officers of a country with whom we are not formally at war during a public visit to a third country that had no opposition to his presence? And what precedent has this assassination established on the acceptable conduct of nation-states toward military leaders of countries with which we might have strong disagreement short of actual war — or for their future actions toward our own people?...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-crisis-isnt-a-failure-of-the-ex...
Jim Webb | Jan. 9, 2020
...How did it become acceptable to assassinate one of the top military officers of a country with whom we are not formally at war during a public visit to a third country that had no opposition to his presence? And what precedent has this assassination established on the acceptable conduct of nation-states toward military leaders of countries with which we might have strong disagreement short of actual war — or for their future actions toward our own people?...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-crisis-isnt-a-failure-of-the-ex...
69margd
New York City Bar Association Calls for Congressional Probe of US AG William Barr
Tom McParland | January 09, 2020
..."significant concerns" about the propriety of AG Barr's recent statements.
The New York City Bar Association called on Congress to open formal inquiries into the conduct of U.S. Attorney General William Barr, citing multiple public statements that the organization said threaten “public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.”
In a Jan. 8 letter* to congressional leaders, the city bar decried a “pattern” of behavior that was inconsistent with the office of the attorney general and positioned Department of Justice lawyers as “political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others.”
“These statements are the latest examples of a broader pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the role of the attorney general in our legal and constitutional system and with the norms and standards that govern the fair administration of justice,” the letter said. “We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to investigate this troubling pattern of conduct, in order to assess Mr. Barr’s actions as attorney general and to consider any legislative and oversight responses and remedies that may be necessary.”
...The letter, addressed to the leadership of the House and Senate, specifically cited an October speech at the University of Notre Dame, where Barr praised “Judeo-Christian” values as crucial to the nation’s founding and vowed to place the DOJ “at the forefront” of efforts to resist the “forces of secularization.”
It also outlined comments in separate addresses at a gathering of the Fraternal Order of Police and a subsequent DOJ awards ceremony, in which Barr assailed a “progressive holy war” on the rule of law, and attacked big-city district attorneys for stoking anti-law-enforcement sentiment in communities following police-involved shootings. In those remarks, Barr said, “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”
“Mr. Barr did not specify which ‘communities’ were at risk of seeing decreased police protection because they lack respect for law enforcement, but his comment was understood by some observers, not unreasonably, as being directed toward members of communities of color protesting excessive use of force by police”...
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/01/09/new-york-city-bar-association-c...
*6p letter from NYC Bar to McConnell, McCartney, Pelosi, Schumer:
https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/389/92685/NYC-Barr-Inqu...
Tom McParland | January 09, 2020
..."significant concerns" about the propriety of AG Barr's recent statements.
The New York City Bar Association called on Congress to open formal inquiries into the conduct of U.S. Attorney General William Barr, citing multiple public statements that the organization said threaten “public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.”
In a Jan. 8 letter* to congressional leaders, the city bar decried a “pattern” of behavior that was inconsistent with the office of the attorney general and positioned Department of Justice lawyers as “political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others.”
“These statements are the latest examples of a broader pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the role of the attorney general in our legal and constitutional system and with the norms and standards that govern the fair administration of justice,” the letter said. “We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to investigate this troubling pattern of conduct, in order to assess Mr. Barr’s actions as attorney general and to consider any legislative and oversight responses and remedies that may be necessary.”
...The letter, addressed to the leadership of the House and Senate, specifically cited an October speech at the University of Notre Dame, where Barr praised “Judeo-Christian” values as crucial to the nation’s founding and vowed to place the DOJ “at the forefront” of efforts to resist the “forces of secularization.”
It also outlined comments in separate addresses at a gathering of the Fraternal Order of Police and a subsequent DOJ awards ceremony, in which Barr assailed a “progressive holy war” on the rule of law, and attacked big-city district attorneys for stoking anti-law-enforcement sentiment in communities following police-involved shootings. In those remarks, Barr said, “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”
“Mr. Barr did not specify which ‘communities’ were at risk of seeing decreased police protection because they lack respect for law enforcement, but his comment was understood by some observers, not unreasonably, as being directed toward members of communities of color protesting excessive use of force by police”...
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/01/09/new-york-city-bar-association-c...
*6p letter from NYC Bar to McConnell, McCartney, Pelosi, Schumer:
https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/389/92685/NYC-Barr-Inqu...
70proximity1
>66 margd: >67 margd: & >68 margd:
Never mind Iran. President Trump hasn't ordered any U.S. military action or deployments in Iran.
Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleymanei was killed in a drone strike on a motorcade convoy at Baghdad.
President Trump has Congressional authority to use military force in Iraq (See below: 116 STAT. 1500 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002)
where the relevant text reads "the President", these clauses apply now to President Trump. It's called the "law" and it applies to the duly elected "president", whomever that may be while the law is in force and effect; and the law is in force and effect.
116 STAT. 1500 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
.pdf : https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
(in part)
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
… (in part)
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
(in part)
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions been forced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force(Public Law 107–40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
116 STAT. 1501 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,evasion and non-compliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—the President shall, at least once every 60 days,submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).
__________________________________
Related texts:
323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003)
John DOE I, et al v. George W. BUSH, President, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Defendants, Appellees.
No. 03-1266.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
March 13, 2003 ; Heard March 4, 2003
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/323-f-3d-133-594300002
Legislation related to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Congressional Record, Library of Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/00114/relate...
71John5918
Man who tackled London attacker with tusk says Trump is 'feeding terror' (Guardian)
The man who used a narwhal tusk to tackle the London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan has accused Donald Trump of “feeding terror” with his belligerent Middle East policy, warning it will breed more murderous attackers like the one he and others faced.
In his first interview since Khan killed two people and injured several more at a criminal justice conference on 29 November, Darryn Frost said the US president’s decision to assassinate General Qassem Suleimani would cost lives and added: “The next generation of terrorists will rise as a direct result of these actions and we must condemn them now”...
The man who used a narwhal tusk to tackle the London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan has accused Donald Trump of “feeding terror” with his belligerent Middle East policy, warning it will breed more murderous attackers like the one he and others faced.
In his first interview since Khan killed two people and injured several more at a criminal justice conference on 29 November, Darryn Frost said the US president’s decision to assassinate General Qassem Suleimani would cost lives and added: “The next generation of terrorists will rise as a direct result of these actions and we must condemn them now”...
72margd
>69 margd: Barr, contd. Definitive overview on the making of William Barr, Trump's sword and shield...
William Barr, Trump’s Sword and Shield
The Attorney General’s mission to maximize executive power and protect the Presidency.
David Rohde | January 20, 2020 Issue
...(Donald Ayer, the former Bush Administration Deputy Attorney General) fears that Barr has combined a Reagan-era drive to dismantle government with a Trump-era drive to politicize it. As the White House succeeds in holding off congressional attempts at removing Trump from office, Barr is winning his long war on the power of the legislative branch. In the 2020 campaign, Trump will argue that he alone can protect the country from the dangers posed by the left, immigrants, and other enemies. And Barr’s vision of Presidential power will be the Party’s mainstream position. “Barr sought out the opportunity to be Donald Trump’s Attorney General,” Ayer said. “This, I believe, was his opportunity—the opportunity of a lifetime—to make major progress on advancing his vision of an all-powerful Chief Executive.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/20/william-barr-trumps-sword-and-shie...
William Barr, Trump’s Sword and Shield
The Attorney General’s mission to maximize executive power and protect the Presidency.
David Rohde | January 20, 2020 Issue
...(Donald Ayer, the former Bush Administration Deputy Attorney General) fears that Barr has combined a Reagan-era drive to dismantle government with a Trump-era drive to politicize it. As the White House succeeds in holding off congressional attempts at removing Trump from office, Barr is winning his long war on the power of the legislative branch. In the 2020 campaign, Trump will argue that he alone can protect the country from the dangers posed by the left, immigrants, and other enemies. And Barr’s vision of Presidential power will be the Party’s mainstream position. “Barr sought out the opportunity to be Donald Trump’s Attorney General,” Ayer said. “This, I believe, was his opportunity—the opportunity of a lifetime—to make major progress on advancing his vision of an all-powerful Chief Executive.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/20/william-barr-trumps-sword-and-shie...
73John5918
Trump’s most baleful legacy? The end of trust in democracy and the rule of law (Guardian)
America’s founding principles are being eroded by a culture of partisanship and sycophancy – and the effect will be global
America’s founding principles are being eroded by a culture of partisanship and sycophancy – and the effect will be global
74John5918
Dissatisfaction with democracy 'at record high' (BBC)
Dissatisfaction with democracy within developed countries is at its highest level in almost 25 years, according to University of Cambridge researchers... The UK and the United States had particularly high levels of discontent...
In the UK, the study says, from the 1970s satisfaction with democracy rose consistently for 30 years - reaching a high point in the years following the millennium. But it has slipped downwards since 2005 - following global trends such as the financial crisis and national controversies such as MPs' expenses. And researchers say there has been a more recent plunge in satisfaction, which could reflect the political stalemate around Brexit, in surveys carried out before December's general election...
The US, meanwhile, has seen high levels of satisfaction - about 75% between 1995 and 2005 - followed by a "dramatic and unexpected" decline, to below 50%. Such cynicism might not be unusual in some countries but Dr Foa said it represented a "profound shift in America's view of itself". The study says satisfaction has deteriorated in the wake of the financial crash, with political polarisation and deepening levels of distrust...
But a group of European countries has been bucking this trend, with satisfaction with democracy higher than ever before in Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and the Netherlands...
Dissatisfaction with democracy within developed countries is at its highest level in almost 25 years, according to University of Cambridge researchers... The UK and the United States had particularly high levels of discontent...
In the UK, the study says, from the 1970s satisfaction with democracy rose consistently for 30 years - reaching a high point in the years following the millennium. But it has slipped downwards since 2005 - following global trends such as the financial crisis and national controversies such as MPs' expenses. And researchers say there has been a more recent plunge in satisfaction, which could reflect the political stalemate around Brexit, in surveys carried out before December's general election...
The US, meanwhile, has seen high levels of satisfaction - about 75% between 1995 and 2005 - followed by a "dramatic and unexpected" decline, to below 50%. Such cynicism might not be unusual in some countries but Dr Foa said it represented a "profound shift in America's view of itself". The study says satisfaction has deteriorated in the wake of the financial crash, with political polarisation and deepening levels of distrust...
But a group of European countries has been bucking this trend, with satisfaction with democracy higher than ever before in Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and the Netherlands...
75margd
VoteVets @votevets 10:41 AM · Jan 28, 2020:
After being pardoned by Trump for war crimes,
disgraced Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher posted a video attacking his former teammates who testified against him,
listing their personal info and placing those still on active duty in harm's way.
Retired Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher strikes back at SEALs who testified against him
In a video published on social media, Gallagher highlights the faces and current units of active-duty SEALs, calls them "cowards"
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2020-01-27/video-retire...
After being pardoned by Trump for war crimes,
disgraced Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher posted a video attacking his former teammates who testified against him,
listing their personal info and placing those still on active duty in harm's way.
Retired Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher strikes back at SEALs who testified against him
In a video published on social media, Gallagher highlights the faces and current units of active-duty SEALs, calls them "cowards"
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2020-01-27/video-retire...
76margd
Jim Sciutto (CNN) @jimsciutto | 6:23 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
As you wake up this morning, imagine the rest of the 2020 race given the WH team’s (Dershowitz) argument
a president can do virtually anything to get elected, including accepting information from foreign countries,
if the president deems his/her re-election in the national interest.
2/ These are the answered questions:
Can you accept dirt from a foreign government? Yes.
Can you pressure a foreign govt for that dirt? Yes.
Can that foreign govt be corrupt therefore raising questions about said dirt?
Yes.
3/ That leaves the unanswered ones:
Can you accept dirt from authoritarian govts?
Can that dirt be stolen or hacked by those govts?
Who is to vet the dirt, if anyone, to assess whether it’s credible?
4/ Would DNC emails stolen and supplied by Russia fit under this umbrella?
Stolen Podesta emails?
I’ve had fringe Trump supporters make that argument re 2016 to me already.
Now, it’s being repeated by one of the president’s lawyers on the floor of the US senate.
5/ Big picture, has the WH defense effectively opened the door to a repeat of Russian 2016 interference
but now with a congressional deal of approval?
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Frum @davidfrum | 7:26 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
The Republican argument, if correct, asserts that
Donald Trump has a perfect right to sell presidential pardons to anyone willing to donate to his re-election fund
Fred Kesselman @fkess23 | 7:29 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Replying to @davidfrum
Also, why let an opponent run against him?
The president is working for the best interest of the country,
th(e)n his opponent is doing the exact opposite.
#monarchy
Cyrano's Nose @Cyranos_Nose | 7:27 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Replying to @davidfrum
Also means Obama had every right to use his FBI to "spy" on Trump to get another Democrat elected.
Chile Relleno @sailtooblivion | 7:28 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Replying to @davidfrum
Or pay a porno actress for her silence.
Ted Pinkos @TedPinkos | 7:39 AM · Jan 30, 2020
Replying to @davidfrum
R’s are cracking Pandoras box wider
Citizens United was the beginning and unless Bolton finds his balls today ....
this thing ends on Friday and Democracy dies a little and we have a monarchy
Sad times for
🇺🇸
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
tedfrank @tedfrank · 17m
Replying to @davidfrum ( https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1222860452193021953 )
...Trump’s argument doesn’t exonerate him if he drops Bernie Sanders out of a helicopter,
because that’s a crime, even if it’s sincerely believed to be good for the country.
Jon Favreau @jonfavs | 7:56 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Well what if Trump announced that he’d pardon anyone who “took care of” his opponents, and then did so?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
Scott Stedman @ScottMStedman | 10:25 PM · Jan 29, 2020
Alright then, gloves off. Hey Germany, leak me some Trump/Deutsche Bank records. +6572176295
Quote Tweet
Paul McLeod @pdmcleod · 12h
Asked whether it would be illegal for Trump to use dirt on his election opponent that comes from Russia or China,
Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin argues no.
He says information doesn’t violate the law. As long as it’s true it is “relevant information for voters to know about."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
David Frum @davidfrum |
Maybe Democratic candidates could promise to waive tariffs on Chinese products
if the Chinese authorities released damaging info on Jared before the election?
That's cool now, right?
Quote Tweet
CNBC CNBC · 19m
In 2017, Jared Kushner held a secretive meeting with private equity investors in China. Our @kaylatausche filed a FOIA request for more information. The State Dept. says it aims to complete the request by July 2021 — about 3½ years after it was filed. https://cnb.cx/38SlrLo
3:22 ( https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1222911295206371334 )
As you wake up this morning, imagine the rest of the 2020 race given the WH team’s (Dershowitz) argument
a president can do virtually anything to get elected, including accepting information from foreign countries,
if the president deems his/her re-election in the national interest.
2/ These are the answered questions:
Can you accept dirt from a foreign government? Yes.
Can you pressure a foreign govt for that dirt? Yes.
Can that foreign govt be corrupt therefore raising questions about said dirt?
Yes.
3/ That leaves the unanswered ones:
Can you accept dirt from authoritarian govts?
Can that dirt be stolen or hacked by those govts?
Who is to vet the dirt, if anyone, to assess whether it’s credible?
4/ Would DNC emails stolen and supplied by Russia fit under this umbrella?
Stolen Podesta emails?
I’ve had fringe Trump supporters make that argument re 2016 to me already.
Now, it’s being repeated by one of the president’s lawyers on the floor of the US senate.
5/ Big picture, has the WH defense effectively opened the door to a repeat of Russian 2016 interference
but now with a congressional deal of approval?
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Frum @davidfrum | 7:26 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
The Republican argument, if correct, asserts that
Donald Trump has a perfect right to sell presidential pardons to anyone willing to donate to his re-election fund
Fred Kesselman @fkess23 | 7:29 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Replying to @davidfrum
Also, why let an opponent run against him?
The president is working for the best interest of the country,
th(e)n his opponent is doing the exact opposite.
#monarchy
Cyrano's Nose @Cyranos_Nose | 7:27 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Replying to @davidfrum
Also means Obama had every right to use his FBI to "spy" on Trump to get another Democrat elected.
Chile Relleno @sailtooblivion | 7:28 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Replying to @davidfrum
Or pay a porno actress for her silence.
Ted Pinkos @TedPinkos | 7:39 AM · Jan 30, 2020
Replying to @davidfrum
R’s are cracking Pandoras box wider
Citizens United was the beginning and unless Bolton finds his balls today ....
this thing ends on Friday and Democracy dies a little and we have a monarchy
Sad times for
🇺🇸
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
tedfrank @tedfrank · 17m
Replying to @davidfrum ( https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1222860452193021953 )
...Trump’s argument doesn’t exonerate him if he drops Bernie Sanders out of a helicopter,
because that’s a crime, even if it’s sincerely believed to be good for the country.
Jon Favreau @jonfavs | 7:56 AM · Jan 30, 2020:
Well what if Trump announced that he’d pardon anyone who “took care of” his opponents, and then did so?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
Scott Stedman @ScottMStedman | 10:25 PM · Jan 29, 2020
Alright then, gloves off. Hey Germany, leak me some Trump/Deutsche Bank records. +6572176295
Quote Tweet
Paul McLeod @pdmcleod · 12h
Asked whether it would be illegal for Trump to use dirt on his election opponent that comes from Russia or China,
Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin argues no.
He says information doesn’t violate the law. As long as it’s true it is “relevant information for voters to know about."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA
David Frum @davidfrum |
Maybe Democratic candidates could promise to waive tariffs on Chinese products
if the Chinese authorities released damaging info on Jared before the election?
That's cool now, right?
Quote Tweet
CNBC CNBC · 19m
In 2017, Jared Kushner held a secretive meeting with private equity investors in China. Our @kaylatausche filed a FOIA request for more information. The State Dept. says it aims to complete the request by July 2021 — about 3½ years after it was filed. https://cnb.cx/38SlrLo
3:22 ( https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1222911295206371334 )
77margd
How to Build an Autocracy
David Frum | March 2017 Issue
The preconditions are present in the U.S. today. Here’s the playbook Donald Trump could use to set the country down a path toward illiberalism.
...Those citizens who fantasize about defying tyranny from within fortified compounds have never understood how liberty is actually threatened in a modern bureaucratic state: not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralizing process of corruption and deceit. And the way that liberty must be defended is not with amateur firearms, but with an unwearying insistence upon the honesty, integrity, and professionalism of American institutions and those who lead them. We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/5...
David Frum | March 2017 Issue
The preconditions are present in the U.S. today. Here’s the playbook Donald Trump could use to set the country down a path toward illiberalism.
...Those citizens who fantasize about defying tyranny from within fortified compounds have never understood how liberty is actually threatened in a modern bureaucratic state: not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralizing process of corruption and deceit. And the way that liberty must be defended is not with amateur firearms, but with an unwearying insistence upon the honesty, integrity, and professionalism of American institutions and those who lead them. We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/5...
78John5918
Trump to reportedly allow use of landmines, reversing Obama-era policy (Guardian)
The US will end its moratorium on the production and deployment of landmines, in another reversal of Obama-era policies and a further breach with western allies, it has been reported...
The 2014 directive brought US policy more in line with the 1997 mine ban treaty outlawing the weapons because of their disproportionate harm to civilians. Obama did not join the treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, reserving the right for the US to use landmines on the Korean peninsula. The treaty has been signed by 164 countries, including all of America’s Nato allies...
“Mr Trump’s landmine move would be in line with all of his other moves to undercut arms control and disarmament in a world much in need of them”...
The US will end its moratorium on the production and deployment of landmines, in another reversal of Obama-era policies and a further breach with western allies, it has been reported...
The 2014 directive brought US policy more in line with the 1997 mine ban treaty outlawing the weapons because of their disproportionate harm to civilians. Obama did not join the treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, reserving the right for the US to use landmines on the Korean peninsula. The treaty has been signed by 164 countries, including all of America’s Nato allies...
“Mr Trump’s landmine move would be in line with all of his other moves to undercut arms control and disarmament in a world much in need of them”...
79margd
Ladies and gentlemen, the world's greatest deliberative body. Hah!
Opinion | When the impeachment trial ends, the Senate’s reputation will be hopelessly in tatters
Not much will be left of the impeachment power after the Senate’s acquittal of Trump.
...(The) combination of jaw-dropping audacity and constitutional illiteracy now leaves a toxic residue: the impeachment clause neutered and the country in dangerous constitutional territory...
...The impeachment power isn’t needed to keep most presidents from engaging in impeachable conduct, just as homicide statutes aren’t necessary to keep most of us from committing murder. Presidents face other constraints, moral and political, on their behavior. The reason the Framers wrote the impeachment clause into the Constitution was that they recognized the risk, even within the span of a four-year term, of an outlier, renegade president, and one so dangerous that they needed to take desperate measures. In such cases, impeachment isn’t overturning the will of the electorate; it’s effectuating the wisdom of the Framers.
They put their faith in checks and balances. We are left with a president unchecked and a system dangerously unbalanced.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-president-is-unchecked-and-our-syste...
Opinion | When the impeachment trial ends, the Senate’s reputation will be hopelessly in tatters
Not much will be left of the impeachment power after the Senate’s acquittal of Trump.
...(The) combination of jaw-dropping audacity and constitutional illiteracy now leaves a toxic residue: the impeachment clause neutered and the country in dangerous constitutional territory...
...The impeachment power isn’t needed to keep most presidents from engaging in impeachable conduct, just as homicide statutes aren’t necessary to keep most of us from committing murder. Presidents face other constraints, moral and political, on their behavior. The reason the Framers wrote the impeachment clause into the Constitution was that they recognized the risk, even within the span of a four-year term, of an outlier, renegade president, and one so dangerous that they needed to take desperate measures. In such cases, impeachment isn’t overturning the will of the electorate; it’s effectuating the wisdom of the Framers.
They put their faith in checks and balances. We are left with a president unchecked and a system dangerously unbalanced.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-president-is-unchecked-and-our-syste...
80LolaWalser
Presidents face other constraints, moral and political, on their behavior.
Maybe some did once, but this has not been true since Trumpo's inauguration and every single day after. Has there been a day this creature hasn't done or said something to make decent people blush?
Speaking of decency... no "have you no shame, sir" figures in your Senate; no shame whatsoever among the Republicans.
The party of criminals pure and simple.
Maybe some did once, but this has not been true since Trumpo's inauguration and every single day after. Has there been a day this creature hasn't done or said something to make decent people blush?
Speaking of decency... no "have you no shame, sir" figures in your Senate; no shame whatsoever among the Republicans.
The party of criminals pure and simple.
81margd
Lawrence tweeted that 49 senators voting FOR witnesses represented 19 million more voters than the 51 senators voting against...
NYT reported that a PA wompan who stole $110 groceries sentenced to 10 months in prison.
The price for conspiring to steal a national election? TBD...
NYT reported that a PA wompan who stole $110 groceries sentenced to 10 months in prison.
The price for conspiring to steal a national election? TBD...
82John5918
Ah yes, the USA, the land of the free, where politicians demands that their political opponents should be jailed or shot...
Montana Republican refuses to quit over call for socialists to be 'jailed or shot' (Guardian)
A Montana Republican lawmaker who says the US constitution allows for socialists to be jailed or shot will only resign “if God asked me to”.
State representative Rodney Garcia, of Billings also said he has been congratulated by supporters for his controversial stance and has filed to run for state senate...
He was rebuked by his party and three Republican legislative leaders called on him to resign over remarks they called “un-American”...
Montana Republican refuses to quit over call for socialists to be 'jailed or shot' (Guardian)
A Montana Republican lawmaker who says the US constitution allows for socialists to be jailed or shot will only resign “if God asked me to”.
State representative Rodney Garcia, of Billings also said he has been congratulated by supporters for his controversial stance and has filed to run for state senate...
He was rebuked by his party and three Republican legislative leaders called on him to resign over remarks they called “un-American”...
83margd
Book review: Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump's War on the World's Most Powerful Office
by Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes)
How Trump Is Remaking the Highest Office in His Own Image
Jennifer Szalai | Feb. 5, 2020
...Hennessey and Wittes characterize earlier presidential overreach as “small potatoes” compared to the conflagrations of the last three years.
...“Whatever Trump is,” they write, “he is not a hypocrite.” Trump’s mask has been off from the beginning. An impeachment acquittal, this book warns, might give Americans a glimpse of what executive power looks like when the gloves come off, too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/books/review-unmaking-presidency-donald-trump...
by Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes)
How Trump Is Remaking the Highest Office in His Own Image
Jennifer Szalai | Feb. 5, 2020
...Hennessey and Wittes characterize earlier presidential overreach as “small potatoes” compared to the conflagrations of the last three years.
...“Whatever Trump is,” they write, “he is not a hypocrite.” Trump’s mask has been off from the beginning. An impeachment acquittal, this book warns, might give Americans a glimpse of what executive power looks like when the gloves come off, too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/books/review-unmaking-presidency-donald-trump...
84margd
Aaron Rupar @atrupar | 5:04 PM · Feb 11, 2020
Asked about Roger Stone, Trump says he has an “absolute right” to tell the Justice Department what to do
0:35 ( https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1227352806992072704 )
ETA:
So for those of you who with a day job, here’s what happened:
Roger Stone gets recommended for 7-9 years for his crimes.
Trump tweets that it’s unfair.
DOJ then intervenes to reduce the prison term, something that is literally never done.
3 prosecutors just resigned in protest.
- Brian Schatz @brianschatz | 4:57 PM · Feb 11, 2020
Exactly. Except now it's four prosecutors, not three.
Also, the US Attorney in that office was replaced a week ago with an aide from AG William Barr's office.
- Rachel Maddow MSNBC @maddow | 5:50 PM · Feb 11, 2020·
Asked about Roger Stone, Trump says he has an “absolute right” to tell the Justice Department what to do
0:35 ( https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1227352806992072704 )
ETA:
So for those of you who with a day job, here’s what happened:
Roger Stone gets recommended for 7-9 years for his crimes.
Trump tweets that it’s unfair.
DOJ then intervenes to reduce the prison term, something that is literally never done.
3 prosecutors just resigned in protest.
- Brian Schatz @brianschatz | 4:57 PM · Feb 11, 2020
Exactly. Except now it's four prosecutors, not three.
Also, the US Attorney in that office was replaced a week ago with an aide from AG William Barr's office.
- Rachel Maddow MSNBC @maddow | 5:50 PM · Feb 11, 2020·
85proximity1
"3 prosecutors just resigned in protest."
Good riddance.
86margd
>84 margd: contd.
Barr takes control of legal matters of interest to Trump, including Stone sentencing
Carol E. Lee, Ken D | Feb. 11, 2020
...Attorney General William Barr's intervention in Roger Stone's case wasn't the first time senior political appointees reached into a case involving an ex-Trump aide, officials say. Senior officials at the Justice Department also intervened last month to help change the government's sentencing recommendation for Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. While the prosecutors had once recommended up to six months in jail, their latest filing now says they believe probation would be appropriate.
...The resignations and the unusual moves by Barr come as Trump has sought revenge against government officials who testified after congressional Democrats subpoenaed them in their impeachment investigation. In the days since the Senate acquitted him, Trump fired his ambassador to the European Union, a political supporter whom he nominated, and had other officials moved out of the White House.
"This signals to me that there has been a political infestation," NBC News legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia, said on MSNBC. "And that is the single most dangerous thing that you can do to the Department of Justice."
..."I've never seen this happen, ever," said Gregory Brower, a former U.S. attorney for Nevada and senior FBI official. "I'd be shocked if the judge didn't order the U.S. attorney to come into court to explain it."
...Barr named Timothy Shea as interim U.S. attorney for Washington on Jan. 30...didn't mention that Liu had been unceremoniously pushed out. Liu had been picked for a job in the Treasury Department, and normally she would have remained as U.S. attorney until the Senate voted on her nomination, current and former officials said. Trump has now rescinded her nomination to be undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-takes-control-legal-mat...
Barr takes control of legal matters of interest to Trump, including Stone sentencing
Carol E. Lee, Ken D | Feb. 11, 2020
...Attorney General William Barr's intervention in Roger Stone's case wasn't the first time senior political appointees reached into a case involving an ex-Trump aide, officials say. Senior officials at the Justice Department also intervened last month to help change the government's sentencing recommendation for Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. While the prosecutors had once recommended up to six months in jail, their latest filing now says they believe probation would be appropriate.
...The resignations and the unusual moves by Barr come as Trump has sought revenge against government officials who testified after congressional Democrats subpoenaed them in their impeachment investigation. In the days since the Senate acquitted him, Trump fired his ambassador to the European Union, a political supporter whom he nominated, and had other officials moved out of the White House.
"This signals to me that there has been a political infestation," NBC News legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia, said on MSNBC. "And that is the single most dangerous thing that you can do to the Department of Justice."
..."I've never seen this happen, ever," said Gregory Brower, a former U.S. attorney for Nevada and senior FBI official. "I'd be shocked if the judge didn't order the U.S. attorney to come into court to explain it."
...Barr named Timothy Shea as interim U.S. attorney for Washington on Jan. 30...didn't mention that Liu had been unceremoniously pushed out. Liu had been picked for a job in the Treasury Department, and normally she would have remained as U.S. attorney until the Senate voted on her nomination, current and former officials said. Trump has now rescinded her nomination to be undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-takes-control-legal-mat...
87John5918
Five ways Trump has undermined American justice (CNN)
Maybe the most insidious effect of Donald Trump's presidency has been his increasingly overt influence on American justice.
The US system was set up according to the principle that no one is above the law, not even the most powerful person in the land. But Trump has steadily chipped away at that. Each of these things feed into each other:
- Refusing to release his tax returns and other financial information;
- Having his lawyers insist that he can't be charged with a crime while he's in office, even if he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue;
- Asserting absolute immunity from any type of congressional oversight;
- Having his lawyers argue during his impeachment trial that he can't actually be abusing power if it's to help himself get re-elected;
- And now, without even trying to hide it, tipping the scales of justice to help his friends.
Hands on the scales -- He's interfered in military courts to help Navy SEALs accused of war crimes. He's pressured the military to seek retribution against an Army officer who told the truth under oath. He's bullied judges, tried to launch politically motivated investigations and just generally questioned the whole concept of impartiality...
Maybe the most insidious effect of Donald Trump's presidency has been his increasingly overt influence on American justice.
The US system was set up according to the principle that no one is above the law, not even the most powerful person in the land. But Trump has steadily chipped away at that. Each of these things feed into each other:
- Refusing to release his tax returns and other financial information;
- Having his lawyers insist that he can't be charged with a crime while he's in office, even if he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue;
- Asserting absolute immunity from any type of congressional oversight;
- Having his lawyers argue during his impeachment trial that he can't actually be abusing power if it's to help himself get re-elected;
- And now, without even trying to hide it, tipping the scales of justice to help his friends.
Hands on the scales -- He's interfered in military courts to help Navy SEALs accused of war crimes. He's pressured the military to seek retribution against an Army officer who told the truth under oath. He's bullied judges, tried to launch politically motivated investigations and just generally questioned the whole concept of impartiality...
88margd
>87 John5918: Good, if depressing, overview...thanks.
>84 margd: >86 margd: Barr contd.
Andrea Bernstein @AndreaWNYC | 10:28 PM · Feb 12, 2020:
Let’s see, wasn’t that when SDNY was deciding it couldn’t pursue a case against “individual-1”?
The case that SDNY handed off to DA Vance.
That Trumps private attorneys argued —with DOJ support — couldn’t even be investigated.
That’s going to SCOTUS next month.
Quote Tweet
Eric Umansky @ericuman · 11h
Image ( https://twitter.com/ericuman/status/1227788248090599424/photo/1 )
So what Manhattan cases involving the administration did Barr insert himself into?
After Stone Case, Prosecutors Say They Fear Pressure From Trump
Katie Benner, Charlie Savage, Sharon LaFraniere and Ben Protess | Updated Feb. 13, 2020, 6:21 a.m. ET
...This is not the first time during the Trump administration that prosecutors were asked to engage in politically charged work.
Rod J. Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general, asked every U.S. attorney’s office to provide up to three federal prosecutors to help review documents in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018. The request seemed like an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement, current prosecutors said.
Soon after he was sworn in last February, Mr. Barr inserted himself into politically charged investigations, seeking information in particular from the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan about cases involving the administration, according to people briefed on the matter. His interest was not unheard-of; prosecutors typically update Washington about high-profile cases.
In the weeks that followed, prosecutors briefed him on at least two politically delicate matters, including an investigation into a suspicious donation to a pro-Trump fund-raising committee. That investigation ultimately led to criminal campaign finance charges last year against two associates of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.
The prosecutors also briefed Mr. Barr on their long-running investigation into hush payments during the 2016 campaign to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump, the people said. While Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, had already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations for his role in those payments by then, prosecutors were still investigating whether the role of executives at Mr. Trump’s family business obstructed the investigation.
At one point during discussions about the scope of campaign finance laws, Mr. Barr essentially questioned the legal theory behind Mr. Cohen’s case, one of the people said. He also questioned whether such cases could be prosecuted civilly, rather than criminally.
Mr. Barr did not pressure the prosecutors to walk away from the investigation into the president’s company, the person said. Although prosecutors concluded the investigation without additional charges, there is no indication that Mr. Barr meddled in the outcome.
The Washington office is grappling with a number of other politically charged cases, including investigations into whether the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey leaked classified information to reporters, and whether his former deputy Andrew G. McCabe misled an inspector general. The office is also handling the sentencing of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.
The president has complained vigorously that neither Mr. Comey nor Mr. McCabe have been charged and that Mr. Flynn was mistreated. Mr. Stone has become a particular focus in recent days, in part because of Tucker Carlson, the Fox host and longtime friend of Mr. Stone’s who has been talking frequently on his show about the case.
“Tucker Carlson has been willing to use his stature and prominence to advocate on behalf of his friend Roger Stone to argue substantively against the arbitrary and selective mistreatment that the Office of Special Counsel has directed against Mr. Stone,” said Sam Nunberg, one of Mr. Trump’s early political advisers.
The president made clear he agreed, and now the Justice Department has responded...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/justice-department-roger-stone-se...
>84 margd: >86 margd: Barr contd.
Andrea Bernstein @AndreaWNYC | 10:28 PM · Feb 12, 2020:
Let’s see, wasn’t that when SDNY was deciding it couldn’t pursue a case against “individual-1”?
The case that SDNY handed off to DA Vance.
That Trumps private attorneys argued —with DOJ support — couldn’t even be investigated.
That’s going to SCOTUS next month.
Quote Tweet
Eric Umansky @ericuman · 11h
Image ( https://twitter.com/ericuman/status/1227788248090599424/photo/1 )
So what Manhattan cases involving the administration did Barr insert himself into?
After Stone Case, Prosecutors Say They Fear Pressure From Trump
Katie Benner, Charlie Savage, Sharon LaFraniere and Ben Protess | Updated Feb. 13, 2020, 6:21 a.m. ET
...This is not the first time during the Trump administration that prosecutors were asked to engage in politically charged work.
Rod J. Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general, asked every U.S. attorney’s office to provide up to three federal prosecutors to help review documents in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018. The request seemed like an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement, current prosecutors said.
Soon after he was sworn in last February, Mr. Barr inserted himself into politically charged investigations, seeking information in particular from the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan about cases involving the administration, according to people briefed on the matter. His interest was not unheard-of; prosecutors typically update Washington about high-profile cases.
In the weeks that followed, prosecutors briefed him on at least two politically delicate matters, including an investigation into a suspicious donation to a pro-Trump fund-raising committee. That investigation ultimately led to criminal campaign finance charges last year against two associates of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.
The prosecutors also briefed Mr. Barr on their long-running investigation into hush payments during the 2016 campaign to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump, the people said. While Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, had already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations for his role in those payments by then, prosecutors were still investigating whether the role of executives at Mr. Trump’s family business obstructed the investigation.
At one point during discussions about the scope of campaign finance laws, Mr. Barr essentially questioned the legal theory behind Mr. Cohen’s case, one of the people said. He also questioned whether such cases could be prosecuted civilly, rather than criminally.
Mr. Barr did not pressure the prosecutors to walk away from the investigation into the president’s company, the person said. Although prosecutors concluded the investigation without additional charges, there is no indication that Mr. Barr meddled in the outcome.
The Washington office is grappling with a number of other politically charged cases, including investigations into whether the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey leaked classified information to reporters, and whether his former deputy Andrew G. McCabe misled an inspector general. The office is also handling the sentencing of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.
The president has complained vigorously that neither Mr. Comey nor Mr. McCabe have been charged and that Mr. Flynn was mistreated. Mr. Stone has become a particular focus in recent days, in part because of Tucker Carlson, the Fox host and longtime friend of Mr. Stone’s who has been talking frequently on his show about the case.
“Tucker Carlson has been willing to use his stature and prominence to advocate on behalf of his friend Roger Stone to argue substantively against the arbitrary and selective mistreatment that the Office of Special Counsel has directed against Mr. Stone,” said Sam Nunberg, one of Mr. Trump’s early political advisers.
The president made clear he agreed, and now the Justice Department has responded...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/justice-department-roger-stone-se...
89margd
'There need to be mass protests': Authoritarianism experts say time is running out for Americans to stop Trump
John Haltiwanger | Feb 12, 2020
...'Someone has got to push back'
"The system is enabling Trump," Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor who wrote "How Fascism Works," told Insider.
"There need to be mass protests," he said. "The Republican Party is betraying democracy, and these are historical times. Someone has got to push back.
"The deeply worrying moment is when you start to become a one-party state," Stanley added. "The Republican Party has shown that it has no interest in multi-party democracy ... They are much more concerned with power, with consolidating power."
Stanley said recent actions by Republicans and Trump were "straight from the literature on authoritarianism."...
https://www.businessinsider.com/authoritarianism-experts-say-time-running-out-am...
John Haltiwanger | Feb 12, 2020
...'Someone has got to push back'
"The system is enabling Trump," Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor who wrote "How Fascism Works," told Insider.
"There need to be mass protests," he said. "The Republican Party is betraying democracy, and these are historical times. Someone has got to push back.
"The deeply worrying moment is when you start to become a one-party state," Stanley added. "The Republican Party has shown that it has no interest in multi-party democracy ... They are much more concerned with power, with consolidating power."
Stanley said recent actions by Republicans and Trump were "straight from the literature on authoritarianism."...
https://www.businessinsider.com/authoritarianism-experts-say-time-running-out-am...
90margd
Barr again? Apparent political interference in grants (as well as contracts, etc.):
Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus
Dana Milbank | Feb. 11, 2020
...Under Attorney General Bill Barr’s management, it appears no corner of the Justice Department can escape perversion — even the annual grants the Justice Department gives to nonprofits and local governments to help victims of human trafficking.
In a new grant award, senior Justice officials rejected the recommendations of career officials and decided to deny grants to highly rated Catholic Charities in Palm Beach, Fla., and Chicanos Por La Causa in Phoenix. Instead, Reuters reported, they gave more than $1 million combined to lower-rated groups called the Lincoln Tubman Foundation and Hookers for Jesus.
Why? Well, it turns out the head of the Catholic Charities affiliate had been active with Democrats and the Phoenix group had opposed President Trump’s immigration policies. By contrast, Hookers for Jesus is run by a Christian conservative and the Lincoln Tubman group was launched by a relative of a Trump delegate to the 2016 convention...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/why-bill-barrs-doj-replaced-c...
Why Bill Barr’s DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus
Dana Milbank | Feb. 11, 2020
...Under Attorney General Bill Barr’s management, it appears no corner of the Justice Department can escape perversion — even the annual grants the Justice Department gives to nonprofits and local governments to help victims of human trafficking.
In a new grant award, senior Justice officials rejected the recommendations of career officials and decided to deny grants to highly rated Catholic Charities in Palm Beach, Fla., and Chicanos Por La Causa in Phoenix. Instead, Reuters reported, they gave more than $1 million combined to lower-rated groups called the Lincoln Tubman Foundation and Hookers for Jesus.
Why? Well, it turns out the head of the Catholic Charities affiliate had been active with Democrats and the Phoenix group had opposed President Trump’s immigration policies. By contrast, Hookers for Jesus is run by a Christian conservative and the Lincoln Tubman group was launched by a relative of a Trump delegate to the 2016 convention...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/why-bill-barrs-doj-replaced-c...
91margd
Betsy DeVos's brother facing possibility of similar charges as Stone: what do you think will happen?
DOJ Nears Decision on Whether to Charge Blackwater Founder Erik Prince
Prince could face charges stemming from his testimony to Congress about Seychelles meeting and potential arms-trafficking violations
Aruna Viswanatha and Julie Bykowicz | Updated Feb. 11, 2020 4:31 pm
...The Justice Department is in the late stages of deciding whether to charge businessman and Trump ally Erik Prince in an investigation into whether he lied to Congress in its Russia probe and violated U.S. export laws in his business dealings overseas...
https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1227322943165911040
DOJ Nears Decision on Whether to Charge Blackwater Founder Erik Prince
Prince could face charges stemming from his testimony to Congress about Seychelles meeting and potential arms-trafficking violations
Aruna Viswanatha and Julie Bykowicz | Updated Feb. 11, 2020 4:31 pm
...The Justice Department is in the late stages of deciding whether to charge businessman and Trump ally Erik Prince in an investigation into whether he lied to Congress in its Russia probe and violated U.S. export laws in his business dealings overseas...
https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1227322943165911040
92margd
DOJ Alumni Statement on the Events Surrounding the Sentencing of Roger Stone
Feb 16
We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice....
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the...
Feb 16
We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice....
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the...
93margd
Wow! Signal much? A great day to be a white collar criminal!
Trump commutes sentence of ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, pardons ex-NY police commissioner Kerik, ex-49ers owner DeBartolo — and Michael Milken
Dan Mangan Kevin Breuninger | Feb 18 2020
...Blagojevich was in the middle of serving a 14-year sentence in Colorado federal prison. The Illinois Democrat was found guilty of attempting to trade the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama for money or favors.
...Trump also announced that he had pardoned Michael Milken, the former junk bond king who became a face of the insider trading financial scandals of the 1980s.
...In all, Trump granted some form of executive clemency to 11 individuals Tuesday.
...Kerik, who oversaw the NYPD during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pleaded guilty in 2009 to charges of felony tax fraud and lying to the government. He was released from federal prison in 2013.
...Earlier Tuesday, the White House said that Trump had signed an executive order granting DeBartolo a full pardon related to a decades-old corruption charge.
...The wave of clemency came as Trump has hinted that he might be considering a pardon for his longtime friend Roger Stone, who was convicted last fall of lying to Congress about his contacts during the 2016 presidential election with the document disclosure group WikiLeaks.
Pardons were given to former CEO Ariel Friedler, who in 2014 admitted conspiring to hack into his competitors’ computer systems; Paul Pogue, who pleaded guilty to underpaying on his taxes over a three-year period; David Safavian, who was convicted of perjury; and Angela Stanton, a Trump-supporting television personality.
Trump also granted commutations to Tynice Nicole Hall and Crystal Munoz, both of whom were given lengthy prison sentences for drug-related offenses, as well as Judith Negron, a minority owner was sentenced to 35 years behind bars for Medicare fraud.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/trump-expected-to-grant-clemency-to-rod-blagojev...
Trump commutes sentence of ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, pardons ex-NY police commissioner Kerik, ex-49ers owner DeBartolo — and Michael Milken
Dan Mangan Kevin Breuninger | Feb 18 2020
...Blagojevich was in the middle of serving a 14-year sentence in Colorado federal prison. The Illinois Democrat was found guilty of attempting to trade the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama for money or favors.
...Trump also announced that he had pardoned Michael Milken, the former junk bond king who became a face of the insider trading financial scandals of the 1980s.
...In all, Trump granted some form of executive clemency to 11 individuals Tuesday.
...Kerik, who oversaw the NYPD during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pleaded guilty in 2009 to charges of felony tax fraud and lying to the government. He was released from federal prison in 2013.
...Earlier Tuesday, the White House said that Trump had signed an executive order granting DeBartolo a full pardon related to a decades-old corruption charge.
...The wave of clemency came as Trump has hinted that he might be considering a pardon for his longtime friend Roger Stone, who was convicted last fall of lying to Congress about his contacts during the 2016 presidential election with the document disclosure group WikiLeaks.
Pardons were given to former CEO Ariel Friedler, who in 2014 admitted conspiring to hack into his competitors’ computer systems; Paul Pogue, who pleaded guilty to underpaying on his taxes over a three-year period; David Safavian, who was convicted of perjury; and Angela Stanton, a Trump-supporting television personality.
Trump also granted commutations to Tynice Nicole Hall and Crystal Munoz, both of whom were given lengthy prison sentences for drug-related offenses, as well as Judith Negron, a minority owner was sentenced to 35 years behind bars for Medicare fraud.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/trump-expected-to-grant-clemency-to-rod-blagojev...
94John5918
Group of federal judges calls emergency meeting over concerns about DOJ's intervention in politically sensitive cases (CNN)
The leaders of a group of federal judges will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday to address growing concerns about the recent intervention of President Donald Trump and the Justice Department in politically sensitive cases...
Group of more than 1,000 judges calls emergency meeting amid Trump concerns (Guardian)
A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting to address growing concerns about the intervention of Donald Trump and justice department officials in politically sensitive cases...
The leaders of a group of federal judges will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday to address growing concerns about the recent intervention of President Donald Trump and the Justice Department in politically sensitive cases...
Group of more than 1,000 judges calls emergency meeting amid Trump concerns (Guardian)
A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting to address growing concerns about the intervention of Donald Trump and justice department officials in politically sensitive cases...
95margd
>93 margd: pardons
Trump’s Pardons Are Meant To Normalize White-Collar Crime
Stephanie Sarkis | Feb 18, 2020, 10:32pm
Why are Trump’s pardons concerning? First, the U.S. Department of Justice vets potential pardons through a rigorous protocol. Trump did not follow this protocol. Instead, he pardoned or commuted these eleven people through “recommendations” from non-government entities — including friends, executives, and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
Another concern is the convictions that Trump is pardoning.
...It is customary around the winter holidays that presidents give pardons, in the spirit of mercy.
...Not only is Trump normalizing pardons, he is normalizing white collar crime. The goal is to make the public view white-collar crime as just the price of “doing business.” The severity of the crimes Trump pardoned outweigh the two cases of lesser charges. In addition to Blagojevich and DeBartolo, Trump pardoned Michael Milken, who plead guilty to securities fraud and conspiracy. He was ordered to pay $600 million in fines. Trump also pardoned Judith Negron, convicted of Medicare fraud, to the tune of $205 million. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Trump appeared to pardon people he believed received unfair convictions and/or sentences, regardless of the amount of concrete evidence against them...
If we are surprised by some of these pardons, that surprise will wear off by the time more pardons are given by Trump — and that is the point. If the public gets used to pardons as a usual occurrence, they won’t say much or even notice when even bigger pardons go through. It’s possible Trump is paving the way for future pardons, such as for Roger Stone. This is what gaslighters do — engage in unexpected behaviors so you won’t notice their other violations of social norms later.
The purpose of gaslighting is to make you question reality. As a country, we have become accustomed to this reality show style of leadership, where “anything can happen,” such as giving Rush Limbaugh a Presidential Medal of Freedom during the State of the Union address. Trump’s behavior has been normalized.
It’s important to remember that none of this is normal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2020/02/18/trumps-pardons-are-meant...
Trump’s Pardons Are Meant To Normalize White-Collar Crime
Stephanie Sarkis | Feb 18, 2020, 10:32pm
Why are Trump’s pardons concerning? First, the U.S. Department of Justice vets potential pardons through a rigorous protocol. Trump did not follow this protocol. Instead, he pardoned or commuted these eleven people through “recommendations” from non-government entities — including friends, executives, and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
Another concern is the convictions that Trump is pardoning.
...It is customary around the winter holidays that presidents give pardons, in the spirit of mercy.
...Not only is Trump normalizing pardons, he is normalizing white collar crime. The goal is to make the public view white-collar crime as just the price of “doing business.” The severity of the crimes Trump pardoned outweigh the two cases of lesser charges. In addition to Blagojevich and DeBartolo, Trump pardoned Michael Milken, who plead guilty to securities fraud and conspiracy. He was ordered to pay $600 million in fines. Trump also pardoned Judith Negron, convicted of Medicare fraud, to the tune of $205 million. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Trump appeared to pardon people he believed received unfair convictions and/or sentences, regardless of the amount of concrete evidence against them...
If we are surprised by some of these pardons, that surprise will wear off by the time more pardons are given by Trump — and that is the point. If the public gets used to pardons as a usual occurrence, they won’t say much or even notice when even bigger pardons go through. It’s possible Trump is paving the way for future pardons, such as for Roger Stone. This is what gaslighters do — engage in unexpected behaviors so you won’t notice their other violations of social norms later.
The purpose of gaslighting is to make you question reality. As a country, we have become accustomed to this reality show style of leadership, where “anything can happen,” such as giving Rush Limbaugh a Presidential Medal of Freedom during the State of the Union address. Trump’s behavior has been normalized.
It’s important to remember that none of this is normal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2020/02/18/trumps-pardons-are-meant...
96John5918
Assange's lawyer says he was offered US pardon for denying Russia hacking (CNN)
lawyer for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said that a former US congressman offered him a pardon on behalf of US President Donald Trump, in exchange for denying Russian involvement in the Democratic National Committee email leak. The White House and the congressman have strongly denied Trump's involvement in the matter...
Dana Rohrabacher denies offering Assange a pardon from Trump (BBC)
A former Republican congressman has denied he offered a pardon to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on behalf of US President Donald Trump. Assange's lawyer said Dana Rohrabacher claimed to be acting "on instructions" from Mr Trump in offering clemency. In return, the president was said to have wanted Assange to say Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election...
lawyer for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said that a former US congressman offered him a pardon on behalf of US President Donald Trump, in exchange for denying Russian involvement in the Democratic National Committee email leak. The White House and the congressman have strongly denied Trump's involvement in the matter...
Dana Rohrabacher denies offering Assange a pardon from Trump (BBC)
A former Republican congressman has denied he offered a pardon to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on behalf of US President Donald Trump. Assange's lawyer said Dana Rohrabacher claimed to be acting "on instructions" from Mr Trump in offering clemency. In return, the president was said to have wanted Assange to say Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election...
97margd
Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing special favors for the Trump administration
Ian Millhiser | Feb 22, 2020
The ordinary rules no longer apply when the Trump administration shows up in court.
The Supreme Court voted along ideological lines Friday evening to allow a Trump administration rule restricting low-income immigrants’ ability to enter the US to take full effect. All four of the Court’s Democratic appointees dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a sharply worded dissenting opinion accusing her Court of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration.
“It is hard to say what is more troubling,” Sotomayor wrote. “That the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”
The Court’s decision in Wolf v. Cook County is a significant development in and of itself because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants. Last August, the Trump administration announced a new rule governing who would be classified as a “public charge” — essentially someone reliant on government aid programs — and thus potentially unable to enter the United States, extend their visa, or obtain a green card. The new rule gives immigration officials leeway to turn away immigrants deemed “likely to be a public charge,” based on a wide range of factors including use of certain public benefits and English language skills.
...Until recently, it was extraordinarily unusual for the government to seek such a stay from the justices while a case was still winding its way through lower courts. As Sotomayor warned in a dissenting opinion last September, “granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘extraordinary’ act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.”
According to a recent paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, “in less than three years, Trump’s Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone)” — and Vladeck’s paper did not include the Trump administration's two applications in the public charge cases. By comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.”
The Trump administration, moreover, has a high win rate when it seeks extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court. It’s achieved a partial or full victory in about 65 percent of the cases where it asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a lower court’s opinion.
As Sotomayor explains in her Wolf opinion, it is very unusual for the Supreme Court to grant such relief so easily...
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/22/21148529/justice-sotomayor-supreme-court-wolf-cook...
Ian Millhiser | Feb 22, 2020
The ordinary rules no longer apply when the Trump administration shows up in court.
The Supreme Court voted along ideological lines Friday evening to allow a Trump administration rule restricting low-income immigrants’ ability to enter the US to take full effect. All four of the Court’s Democratic appointees dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a sharply worded dissenting opinion accusing her Court of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration.
“It is hard to say what is more troubling,” Sotomayor wrote. “That the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”
The Court’s decision in Wolf v. Cook County is a significant development in and of itself because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants. Last August, the Trump administration announced a new rule governing who would be classified as a “public charge” — essentially someone reliant on government aid programs — and thus potentially unable to enter the United States, extend their visa, or obtain a green card. The new rule gives immigration officials leeway to turn away immigrants deemed “likely to be a public charge,” based on a wide range of factors including use of certain public benefits and English language skills.
...Until recently, it was extraordinarily unusual for the government to seek such a stay from the justices while a case was still winding its way through lower courts. As Sotomayor warned in a dissenting opinion last September, “granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘extraordinary’ act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.”
According to a recent paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, “in less than three years, Trump’s Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone)” — and Vladeck’s paper did not include the Trump administration's two applications in the public charge cases. By comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.”
The Trump administration, moreover, has a high win rate when it seeks extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court. It’s achieved a partial or full victory in about 65 percent of the cases where it asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a lower court’s opinion.
As Sotomayor explains in her Wolf opinion, it is very unusual for the Supreme Court to grant such relief so easily...
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/22/21148529/justice-sotomayor-supreme-court-wolf-cook...
98margd
JUST IN: The House has filed a 108-page brief with the Supreme Court arguing in favor of its subpoenas for access to Trump’s personal financial records. https://speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Nos%2019%20715%20760%20%20Meri...
- Kyle Cheney (Politico@kyledcheney | 6:00 PM · Feb 26, 2020
(Expect decision by end of June.)
- Kyle Cheney (Politico@kyledcheney | 6:00 PM · Feb 26, 2020
(Expect decision by end of June.)
99margd
wow. A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to turn over a copy of the unredacted Mueller report,
accusing AG Barr of misrepresenting its findings, and saying Barr lacks both candor and credibility.
walton-mueller-2020-03-05.pdf
drive.google.com
23 p ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PHfUd0BqceqxEPUxGN9n2dkFy9LTBw-j/view )
- Caroline Orr @RVAwonk | 5:26 PM · Mar 5, 2020
accusing AG Barr of misrepresenting its findings, and saying Barr lacks both candor and credibility.
walton-mueller-2020-03-05.pdf
drive.google.com
23 p ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PHfUd0BqceqxEPUxGN9n2dkFy9LTBw-j/view )
- Caroline Orr @RVAwonk | 5:26 PM · Mar 5, 2020
100John5918
For 75 Years, The US Had an 'Endless Frontier' of Science. Now It's Coming to an End (Science Alert)
The US has been the most productive country for science and technology for decades. Many of the basic policy tenets that supported American prowess date back 75 years, to a document called Science: The Endless Frontier...
But many facets of the plan aren't working anymore, and the structural framework laid out in The Endless Frontier needs refreshing for 2020. Research funding, especially the government share for basic research, is being reduced, there is a narrower focus on short-term outcomes and US federal agencies are cutting scientific advisory panels.
How the country, the research community and the public respond to these changes will determine the United States' geopolitical standing...
The US has been the most productive country for science and technology for decades. Many of the basic policy tenets that supported American prowess date back 75 years, to a document called Science: The Endless Frontier...
But many facets of the plan aren't working anymore, and the structural framework laid out in The Endless Frontier needs refreshing for 2020. Research funding, especially the government share for basic research, is being reduced, there is a narrower focus on short-term outcomes and US federal agencies are cutting scientific advisory panels.
How the country, the research community and the public respond to these changes will determine the United States' geopolitical standing...
101margd
Evil never rests:
DOJ, whose immigration courts grind on, request authority to suspend habeus corpus for the rest of us.
Justice Department Reportedly Asks Congress for Indefinite Detention Powers To Fight Coronavirus
Congress should loudly and unanimously reject this insanity.
Eric Boehm | 3.21.2020
The Justice Department is using the COVID-19 outbreak to press for sweeping new powers that include being able to detain Americans indefinitely without a trial, Politico reports.
The department is asking Congress to allow the U.S. attorney general to ask courts to suspend court proceedings. These include "any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings," reports Betsy Woodruff Swan, citing DOJ documents presented to Congress.
In other words, the Justice Department would be able to postpone trials, hearings, and other procedural steps that follow arrest. That represents a potentially huge violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Those powers would apply "whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation," Woodruff Swan writes, and would remain in place for "one year following the end of the national emergency."
https://reason.com/2020/03/21/justice-department-reportedly-asks-congress-for-in...
DOJ, whose immigration courts grind on, request authority to suspend habeus corpus for the rest of us.
Justice Department Reportedly Asks Congress for Indefinite Detention Powers To Fight Coronavirus
Congress should loudly and unanimously reject this insanity.
Eric Boehm | 3.21.2020
The Justice Department is using the COVID-19 outbreak to press for sweeping new powers that include being able to detain Americans indefinitely without a trial, Politico reports.
The department is asking Congress to allow the U.S. attorney general to ask courts to suspend court proceedings. These include "any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings," reports Betsy Woodruff Swan, citing DOJ documents presented to Congress.
In other words, the Justice Department would be able to postpone trials, hearings, and other procedural steps that follow arrest. That represents a potentially huge violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Those powers would apply "whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation," Woodruff Swan writes, and would remain in place for "one year following the end of the national emergency."
https://reason.com/2020/03/21/justice-department-reportedly-asks-congress-for-in...
102margd
NEW: Treasury's inspector general told lawmakers that
the department was right to withhold Trump's tax returns from the House
because DOJ instructed it not to.
The report emphasizes that the IG has no opinion on whether DOJ's judgment was correct.
Image ( https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1248668344087203841/photo/1 )
- Kyle Cheney (Politico) @kyledcheney | 1:45 PM · Apr 10, 2020
the department was right to withhold Trump's tax returns from the House
because DOJ instructed it not to.
The report emphasizes that the IG has no opinion on whether DOJ's judgment was correct.
Image ( https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1248668344087203841/photo/1 )
- Kyle Cheney (Politico) @kyledcheney | 1:45 PM · Apr 10, 2020
103John5918
American Democracy May Be Dying (NYT)
the scariest news of the past week didn’t involve either epidemiology or economics; it was the travesty of an election in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court required that in-person voting proceed despite the health risks and the fact that many who requested absentee ballots never got them.
Why was this so scary? Because it shows that America as we know it may not survive much longer. The pandemic will eventually end; the economy will eventually recover. But democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we’re much closer to losing our democracy than many people realize.
To see how a modern democracy can die, look at events in Europe, especially Hungary, over the past decade...
If you say that something similar can’t happen here, you’re hopelessly naïve. In fact, it’s already happening here, especially at the state level. Wisconsin, in particular, is well on its way toward becoming Hungary on Lake Michigan, as Republicans seek a permanent lock on power...
Back in 2018, Wisconsin’s electorate voted strongly for Democratic control. Voters chose a Democratic governor, and gave 53 percent of their support to Democratic candidates for the State Assembly. But the state is so heavily gerrymandered that despite this popular-vote majority, Democrats got only 36 percent of the Assembly’s seats...
Then came Tuesday’s election. In normal times most attention would have been focused on the Democratic primary — although that became a moot point when Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign. But a seat on the State Supreme Court was also at stake.
Yet Wisconsin, like most of the country, is under a stay-at-home order. So why did Republican legislators, eventually backed by the Republican appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, insist on holding an election as if the situation were normal?
The answer is that the state shutdown had a much more severe impact on voting in Democratic-leaning urban areas, where a great majority of polling places were closed, than in rural or suburban areas. So the state G.O.P. was nakedly exploiting a pandemic to disenfranchise those likely to vote against it.
What we saw in Wisconsin, in short, was a state party doing whatever it takes to cling to power even if a majority of voters want it out — and a partisan bloc on the Supreme Court backing its efforts. Donald Trump, as usual, said the quiet part out loud: If we expand early voting and voting by mail, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
Does anyone seriously doubt that something similar could happen, very soon, at a national level?...
104margd
Brr!
Trump Has Emergency Powers We Aren’t Allowed to Know About
Given that they could make their first appearance in the coronavirus crisis, Congress should insist on having full access to them.
Elizabeth Goitein and Andrew Boyle | April 10, 2020
The past few weeks have given Americans a crash course in the powers that federal, state and local governments wield during emergencies. We’ve seen businesses closed down, citizens quarantined and travel restricted. When President Trump declared emergencies on March 13 under both the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act, he boasted, “I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about.”
The president is right. Some of the most potent emergency powers at his disposal are likely ones we can’t know about, because they are not contained in any publicly available laws. Instead, they are set forth in classified documents known as “presidential emergency action documents.”
These documents consist of draft proclamations, executive orders and proposals for legislation that can be quickly deployed to assert broad presidential authority in a range of worst-case scenarios. They are one of the government’s best-kept secrets. No presidential emergency action document has ever been released or even leaked. And it appears that none has ever been invoked.
...Presidential emergency action documents emerged during the Eisenhower administration as a set of plans to provide for continuity of government after a Soviet nuclear attack. Over time, they were expanded to include proposed responses to other types of emergencies. As described in one declassified government memorandum, they are designed “to implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations.”
Other government documents have revealed some of the actions that older presidential emergency action documents — those issued up through the 1970s — purported to authorize. These include suspension of habeas corpus by the president (not by Congress, as assigned in the Constitution), detention of United States citizens who are suspected of being “subversives,” warrantless searches and seizures and the imposition of martial law.
...Even in the most dire of emergencies, the president of the United States should not be able to operate free from constitutional checks and balances. The coronavirus crisis should serve as a wake-up call. Presidential emergency action documents have managed to escape democratic oversight for nearly 70 years. Congress should move quickly to remedy that omission and assert its authority to review these documents, before we all learn just how far this administration believes the president’s powers reach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-emergency-powers.ht...
Trump Has Emergency Powers We Aren’t Allowed to Know About
Given that they could make their first appearance in the coronavirus crisis, Congress should insist on having full access to them.
Elizabeth Goitein and Andrew Boyle | April 10, 2020
The past few weeks have given Americans a crash course in the powers that federal, state and local governments wield during emergencies. We’ve seen businesses closed down, citizens quarantined and travel restricted. When President Trump declared emergencies on March 13 under both the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act, he boasted, “I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about.”
The president is right. Some of the most potent emergency powers at his disposal are likely ones we can’t know about, because they are not contained in any publicly available laws. Instead, they are set forth in classified documents known as “presidential emergency action documents.”
These documents consist of draft proclamations, executive orders and proposals for legislation that can be quickly deployed to assert broad presidential authority in a range of worst-case scenarios. They are one of the government’s best-kept secrets. No presidential emergency action document has ever been released or even leaked. And it appears that none has ever been invoked.
...Presidential emergency action documents emerged during the Eisenhower administration as a set of plans to provide for continuity of government after a Soviet nuclear attack. Over time, they were expanded to include proposed responses to other types of emergencies. As described in one declassified government memorandum, they are designed “to implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations.”
Other government documents have revealed some of the actions that older presidential emergency action documents — those issued up through the 1970s — purported to authorize. These include suspension of habeas corpus by the president (not by Congress, as assigned in the Constitution), detention of United States citizens who are suspected of being “subversives,” warrantless searches and seizures and the imposition of martial law.
...Even in the most dire of emergencies, the president of the United States should not be able to operate free from constitutional checks and balances. The coronavirus crisis should serve as a wake-up call. Presidential emergency action documents have managed to escape democratic oversight for nearly 70 years. Congress should move quickly to remedy that omission and assert its authority to review these documents, before we all learn just how far this administration believes the president’s powers reach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-emergency-powers.ht...
105margd
Fact check: Trump claims it's his call on when to 'reopen' the country. He's wrong.
Only the states can give shutdown orders, and only the states can lift them, legal scholars say. Many governors agree.
Jane C. Timm and Pete Williams | April 13, 2020
...The authority to require businesses to close in a public health crisis is what is a known as a "police power," and it is reserved by the Constitution to the states, not to the federal government.
...The president didn't shutter the country — governors did, using authorities afforded to the states to quarantine and isolate — and he can't simply announce its reopening.
"There's no statutory authority for the president to do that," Stanford University law professor Bernadette Meyler said. "And there's definitely no inherent constitutional authority...The quarantine power is one of the states' oldest powers"...
...Josh Blackman, a conservative legal expert at South Texas College of Law Houston, said, "I don't know what it means for the president to 'open up the states.'...The president does make certain declarations about critical infrastructure and other guidelines that states generally follow. But the president cannot order the governors to do anything. I don't even think he could withhold funding from states, absent a congressional appropriation"...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-claims-it-s-his-c...
Only the states can give shutdown orders, and only the states can lift them, legal scholars say. Many governors agree.
Jane C. Timm and Pete Williams | April 13, 2020
...The authority to require businesses to close in a public health crisis is what is a known as a "police power," and it is reserved by the Constitution to the states, not to the federal government.
...The president didn't shutter the country — governors did, using authorities afforded to the states to quarantine and isolate — and he can't simply announce its reopening.
"There's no statutory authority for the president to do that," Stanford University law professor Bernadette Meyler said. "And there's definitely no inherent constitutional authority...The quarantine power is one of the states' oldest powers"...
...Josh Blackman, a conservative legal expert at South Texas College of Law Houston, said, "I don't know what it means for the president to 'open up the states.'...The president does make certain declarations about critical infrastructure and other guidelines that states generally follow. But the president cannot order the governors to do anything. I don't even think he could withhold funding from states, absent a congressional appropriation"...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-claims-it-s-his-c...
106margd
Trump Can’t Play Politics With Aid to States
Christine Kwon, Erica Newland, Kristy Parker | April 22, 2020
The Public Record on Possible Discriminatory Allocation of Resources
Constitutional Limits on Discriminatory Allocation of Federal Resources
Take Care Clause
Tenth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
First Amendment and Government Speech Doctrine
What States and Congress Can Do
Conclusion
How Trump treats individual governors affects the nation as a whole. The coronavirus won’t stop at state lines. This virus will soon affect—if it hasn’t already—the lives of most people in every state, and, ultimately, it may harm those in rural areas with few hospitals and doctors most of all. It is the president who is supposed to be the leader in uniting these United States of America, but just as the states have had to step forward to lead the public health response to the pandemic, they may now need to step forward to ensure that federal aid is distributed in the national interest. For now, two key steps in that direction lie ahead: to demand transparency about how states receive aid, and to fully engage the judicial and legislative branches in checking the president’s penchant for abusing his power.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-cant-play-politics-aid-states
Christine Kwon, Erica Newland, Kristy Parker | April 22, 2020
The Public Record on Possible Discriminatory Allocation of Resources
Constitutional Limits on Discriminatory Allocation of Federal Resources
Take Care Clause
Tenth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
First Amendment and Government Speech Doctrine
What States and Congress Can Do
Conclusion
How Trump treats individual governors affects the nation as a whole. The coronavirus won’t stop at state lines. This virus will soon affect—if it hasn’t already—the lives of most people in every state, and, ultimately, it may harm those in rural areas with few hospitals and doctors most of all. It is the president who is supposed to be the leader in uniting these United States of America, but just as the states have had to step forward to lead the public health response to the pandemic, they may now need to step forward to ensure that federal aid is distributed in the national interest. For now, two key steps in that direction lie ahead: to demand transparency about how states receive aid, and to fully engage the judicial and legislative branches in checking the president’s penchant for abusing his power.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-cant-play-politics-aid-states
107margd
Keeping an Eye on the Hand of Justice: Bill Barr and Targeting Joe Biden
Stuart M. Gerson and Kristy Parker | April 29, 2020
...As the Justice Manual makes clear, “Department employees shall report to their supervisor” any “evidence or non-frivolous allegation” that a Department attorney or law enforcement officer “engaged in professional misconduct.” And there are other available channels of reporting including the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Office of Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel and — if legally permissible — Congress. In all cases, the federal Whistleblower Protection Act offers protections for government employees who report violations of law and abuse of authority. Nevertheless, we can expect only so much of subordinate DOJ employees, whose careers and livelihoods are on the line, and they should not be left alone to shoulder the burden of stopping the DOJ from interfering in the 2020 election, particularly at a time when the president is penalizing and suppressing independent judgment by firing inspectors general and continuing his retributive verbal assaults on career DOJ personnel.
Three years of experience has shown that abuses of power are routine for this administration, and that nothing, not even a deadly pandemic, will disrupt its focus on gaining political advantage for the president, even at the expense of truth, fairness and our Constitution. Former DOJ officials and current DOJ whistleblowers can perform an important educational role in heading off any attack on our upcoming election. But especially in this time of true national crisis, the greatest check on governmental misconduct is an informed and energized public. That public must now keep an eye on the hand of Justice and be ready to sound the alarm at signs that this attorney general is about to use the DOJ’s law enforcement powers to support action against those who might criticize or disagree with the president, especially the president’s presumptive November opponent.
https://www.justsecurity.org/69914/keeping-an-eye-on-the-hand-of-justice-bill-ba...
Stuart M. Gerson and Kristy Parker | April 29, 2020
...As the Justice Manual makes clear, “Department employees shall report to their supervisor” any “evidence or non-frivolous allegation” that a Department attorney or law enforcement officer “engaged in professional misconduct.” And there are other available channels of reporting including the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Office of Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel and — if legally permissible — Congress. In all cases, the federal Whistleblower Protection Act offers protections for government employees who report violations of law and abuse of authority. Nevertheless, we can expect only so much of subordinate DOJ employees, whose careers and livelihoods are on the line, and they should not be left alone to shoulder the burden of stopping the DOJ from interfering in the 2020 election, particularly at a time when the president is penalizing and suppressing independent judgment by firing inspectors general and continuing his retributive verbal assaults on career DOJ personnel.
Three years of experience has shown that abuses of power are routine for this administration, and that nothing, not even a deadly pandemic, will disrupt its focus on gaining political advantage for the president, even at the expense of truth, fairness and our Constitution. Former DOJ officials and current DOJ whistleblowers can perform an important educational role in heading off any attack on our upcoming election. But especially in this time of true national crisis, the greatest check on governmental misconduct is an informed and energized public. That public must now keep an eye on the hand of Justice and be ready to sound the alarm at signs that this attorney general is about to use the DOJ’s law enforcement powers to support action against those who might criticize or disagree with the president, especially the president’s presumptive November opponent.
https://www.justsecurity.org/69914/keeping-an-eye-on-the-hand-of-justice-bill-ba...
108margd
Esper Taps Funds From Counter-Russia Programs for Border Wall
Roxana Tiron | April 28, 2020
Portion of $545 million would be directed away from Europe (Norway, Germany, Spain and elsewhere)
Lawmakers have criticized similar Pentagon efforts in past
U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper is directing Pentagon budget planners to defer $545 million worth of construction projects -- many in Europe meant to counter Russian aggression -- to pay for President Donald Trump’s border wall with Mexico.
In a memo sent Monday to the Pentagon’s comptroller and other officials, Esper lists several projects in Norway, Germany, Spain and elsewhere totaling more than $200 million from which he says funds can be redirected...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/esper-taps-funds-from-counter...
Roxana Tiron | April 28, 2020
Portion of $545 million would be directed away from Europe (Norway, Germany, Spain and elsewhere)
Lawmakers have criticized similar Pentagon efforts in past
U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper is directing Pentagon budget planners to defer $545 million worth of construction projects -- many in Europe meant to counter Russian aggression -- to pay for President Donald Trump’s border wall with Mexico.
In a memo sent Monday to the Pentagon’s comptroller and other officials, Esper lists several projects in Norway, Germany, Spain and elsewhere totaling more than $200 million from which he says funds can be redirected...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/esper-taps-funds-from-counter...
109margd
Eleven Questions for Director of National Intelligence Nominee Rep. John Ratcliffe
Nicholas Rasmussen, Margaret Taylor | May 4, 2020
...the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing on May 5 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the president’s nomination of Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas to serve as director of national intelligence. The hearing will be held in person, not remotely.
The revival of this controversial nomination—which had been announced and then withdrawn last summer—is certain to raise new questions about Ratcliffe’s qualifications and fitness to serve as our nation’s sixth Senate-confirmed director of national intelligence. Those questions will take on fresh urgency in light of recent reporting that the president was repeatedly warned by the intelligence community in January and February about the looming coronavirus crisis.
In our view, the Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the better functioning committees of Congress. The committee—its leadership, its members and the professional staff that support them—has a well-deserved reputation for taking a serious approach to the intelligence and national security matters that fall under its oversight....
...Our (11) suggested questions include...
Regardless of whether Ratcliffe is confirmed, the intelligence community, its leadership and its relationship with Congress are at an inflection point. The administration has purged leaders (like Coats, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon and Maguire) and an independent inspector general willing to speak truth to power and execute their duties with integrity. Permanent politicization of the intelligence community is on the table right now. Congress should remember its institutional responsibility to ensure the apolitical excellence of the intelligence community, as well as its institutional prerogative to reject nominees who are not up to snuff.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/eleven-questions-director-national-intelligence-nomi...
Nicholas Rasmussen, Margaret Taylor | May 4, 2020
...the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will hold an open hearing on May 5 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the president’s nomination of Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas to serve as director of national intelligence. The hearing will be held in person, not remotely.
The revival of this controversial nomination—which had been announced and then withdrawn last summer—is certain to raise new questions about Ratcliffe’s qualifications and fitness to serve as our nation’s sixth Senate-confirmed director of national intelligence. Those questions will take on fresh urgency in light of recent reporting that the president was repeatedly warned by the intelligence community in January and February about the looming coronavirus crisis.
In our view, the Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the better functioning committees of Congress. The committee—its leadership, its members and the professional staff that support them—has a well-deserved reputation for taking a serious approach to the intelligence and national security matters that fall under its oversight....
...Our (11) suggested questions include...
Regardless of whether Ratcliffe is confirmed, the intelligence community, its leadership and its relationship with Congress are at an inflection point. The administration has purged leaders (like Coats, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon and Maguire) and an independent inspector general willing to speak truth to power and execute their duties with integrity. Permanent politicization of the intelligence community is on the table right now. Congress should remember its institutional responsibility to ensure the apolitical excellence of the intelligence community, as well as its institutional prerogative to reject nominees who are not up to snuff.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/eleven-questions-director-national-intelligence-nomi...
110margd
Walter Shaub (former director Office of Govt Ethics) @waltshaub | 5/4/2020
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1257443989244043272.html
Yesterday, Trump fired the Intelligence Community Inspector General who complied with a statutory duty to notify Congress of a whistleblower complaint because Republican Senators like Chuck Grassley let him. 1/
On Friday, Trump announced a replacement for the HHS acting Inspector General who issued a report on severe supply shortages on hospitals during a deadly global pandemic because Republican Senators like Ron Johnson let him. 2/
Last month, Trump replaced the DoD acting Inspector General who investigated whether he personally interfered in a $10 billion procurement to retaliate against Amazon's Jeff Bezos for news coverage in the Washington Post because Republican Senators like James Lankford let him. 3/
Last month, Trump nominated a White House lawyer who helped him stonewall the legislative branch during the impeachment process to be the Inspector General overseeing the coronavirus bailout because he knows Republican Senators like Susan Collins are fine with that. 4/
One of Trump's nominees for an IG position is a staff-level government lawyer who would need the management skills to oversee a 1600 person office overseeing the lead agency in the COVID-19 response because Republican Senators like Marco Rubio have signaled that anything goes. 5/
Trump fired an FBI Director for allowing the FBI to investigate him because Republican Senators like Lindsey Graham let him. 6/
Trump committed the impeachable act of firing an Attorney General for declining to stop an investigation of him because Republican Senators like Tom Cotton let him. He then replaced the AG with an unprincipled loyalist because every Republican Senator and 3 Democrats let him. /7
Trump fired a Director of National Intelligence he had personally appointed after the DNI's deputy spilled the beans to Congress that the Russians are trying to help him win another election because Republican Senators like Mitch McConnell let him. /8
The Trump administration reassigned and functionally demoted the head of an agency with a key role in finding a COVID-19 vaccine because he wouldn't push a dangerous anti-malaria drug on us. (Trump claims he didn't know about it, but has a bridge to sell you and won't undo it.)/9
Trump fired one witness who testified against him in the impeachment hearing and reassigned another because Republican Senators like Rand Paul showed him how comfortable they are with the government retaliating against those who speak truth to power. /10
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1257443989244043272.html
Yesterday, Trump fired the Intelligence Community Inspector General who complied with a statutory duty to notify Congress of a whistleblower complaint because Republican Senators like Chuck Grassley let him. 1/
On Friday, Trump announced a replacement for the HHS acting Inspector General who issued a report on severe supply shortages on hospitals during a deadly global pandemic because Republican Senators like Ron Johnson let him. 2/
Last month, Trump replaced the DoD acting Inspector General who investigated whether he personally interfered in a $10 billion procurement to retaliate against Amazon's Jeff Bezos for news coverage in the Washington Post because Republican Senators like James Lankford let him. 3/
Last month, Trump nominated a White House lawyer who helped him stonewall the legislative branch during the impeachment process to be the Inspector General overseeing the coronavirus bailout because he knows Republican Senators like Susan Collins are fine with that. 4/
One of Trump's nominees for an IG position is a staff-level government lawyer who would need the management skills to oversee a 1600 person office overseeing the lead agency in the COVID-19 response because Republican Senators like Marco Rubio have signaled that anything goes. 5/
Trump fired an FBI Director for allowing the FBI to investigate him because Republican Senators like Lindsey Graham let him. 6/
Trump committed the impeachable act of firing an Attorney General for declining to stop an investigation of him because Republican Senators like Tom Cotton let him. He then replaced the AG with an unprincipled loyalist because every Republican Senator and 3 Democrats let him. /7
Trump fired a Director of National Intelligence he had personally appointed after the DNI's deputy spilled the beans to Congress that the Russians are trying to help him win another election because Republican Senators like Mitch McConnell let him. /8
The Trump administration reassigned and functionally demoted the head of an agency with a key role in finding a COVID-19 vaccine because he wouldn't push a dangerous anti-malaria drug on us. (Trump claims he didn't know about it, but has a bridge to sell you and won't undo it.)/9
Trump fired one witness who testified against him in the impeachment hearing and reassigned another because Republican Senators like Rand Paul showed him how comfortable they are with the government retaliating against those who speak truth to power. /10
111margd
Trump says he only will submit to GOP oversight for his administration
Kevin Liptak | May 5, 2020
President Donald Trump said he was allowing Dr. Anthony Fauci to testify before the Republican-led Senate but not the Democrat-led House, calling it a "set up...The House is a bunch of Trump-haters...("They, frankly, want our situation to be unsuccessful, which means death...They should be ashamed of themselves...They want us to fail so they can win an election, which they're not going to win")
Last week, the White House said its attempts to block Fauci from testifying were due to scheduling and time-management issues, which Trump did not mention on Tuesday.
The White House issued a memo Monday seeking to limit task force members' hearing appearances after recently blocking Fauci from testifying before a House subcommittee. Fauci is still expected to appear before a Republican-led Senate committee later this month...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/donald-trump-congress-oversight/index.ht...
Kevin Liptak | May 5, 2020
President Donald Trump said he was allowing Dr. Anthony Fauci to testify before the Republican-led Senate but not the Democrat-led House, calling it a "set up...The House is a bunch of Trump-haters...("They, frankly, want our situation to be unsuccessful, which means death...They should be ashamed of themselves...They want us to fail so they can win an election, which they're not going to win")
Last week, the White House said its attempts to block Fauci from testifying were due to scheduling and time-management issues, which Trump did not mention on Tuesday.
The White House issued a memo Monday seeking to limit task force members' hearing appearances after recently blocking Fauci from testifying before a House subcommittee. Fauci is still expected to appear before a Republican-led Senate committee later this month...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/donald-trump-congress-oversight/index.ht...
112margd
Obama's office privately assailed GOP investigation of Biden (via unprecedented early release of presidential records) in March letter
Allie Malloy, Dan Merica and Paul LeBlanc | May 5, 2020
...Writing to the National Archives and Records Administration -- which maintains presidential records -- Obama's office specifically said that a request from Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa seeking administration documents related to Ukraine was improper...
"The request for early release of presidential records in order to give credence to a Russian disinformation campaign -- one that has already been thoroughly investigated by a bipartisan congressional committee -- is without precedent," said the letter signed by Obama's records representative and dated March 13.
Obama's office went on to write that it will release the requested records but only "in the interest of countering the misinformation campaign underlying this request."
"In doing so, we emphasize that abuse of the special access process strikes at the heart of presidential confidentiality interests and undermines the statutory framework and norms that govern access to presidential records," the letter concluded.
The November request from Johnson and Grassley came as part of GOP effort to obtain a host of records from government agencies related to the Bidens, the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma and uncorroborated allegations about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election.
While Republicans have publicly insist their efforts have nothing to do with Biden's current presidential campaign, they have used their powers in the Senate to look into a series of matters that they believe could shine negative light on the former vice president -- and help President Donald Trump...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/obama-letter-biden-ukraine-investigation...
Allie Malloy, Dan Merica and Paul LeBlanc | May 5, 2020
...Writing to the National Archives and Records Administration -- which maintains presidential records -- Obama's office specifically said that a request from Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa seeking administration documents related to Ukraine was improper...
"The request for early release of presidential records in order to give credence to a Russian disinformation campaign -- one that has already been thoroughly investigated by a bipartisan congressional committee -- is without precedent," said the letter signed by Obama's records representative and dated March 13.
Obama's office went on to write that it will release the requested records but only "in the interest of countering the misinformation campaign underlying this request."
"In doing so, we emphasize that abuse of the special access process strikes at the heart of presidential confidentiality interests and undermines the statutory framework and norms that govern access to presidential records," the letter concluded.
The November request from Johnson and Grassley came as part of GOP effort to obtain a host of records from government agencies related to the Bidens, the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma and uncorroborated allegations about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election.
While Republicans have publicly insist their efforts have nothing to do with Biden's current presidential campaign, they have used their powers in the Senate to look into a series of matters that they believe could shine negative light on the former vice president -- and help President Donald Trump...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/obama-letter-biden-ukraine-investigation...
113John5918
Republicans devote $20m and 50,000 people into efforts to restrict voting (Guardian)
Donald Trump’s campaign and national Republicans are pumping millions of dollars into efforts to restrict voting and aggressively fight Democratic efforts to make it easier to cast a ballot during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Republican National Committee has allocated $20m so far to oppose Democratic lawsuits across the country seeking to expand voting. Republicans are also seeking to recruit up to 50,000 people in 15 key states to serve as poll watchers and challenge the registration of voters they believe are ineligible...
I wonder what colour most of the people they challenge will be?
Donald Trump’s campaign and national Republicans are pumping millions of dollars into efforts to restrict voting and aggressively fight Democratic efforts to make it easier to cast a ballot during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Republican National Committee has allocated $20m so far to oppose Democratic lawsuits across the country seeking to expand voting. Republicans are also seeking to recruit up to 50,000 people in 15 key states to serve as poll watchers and challenge the registration of voters they believe are ineligible...
I wonder what colour most of the people they challenge will be?
114John5918
Trump threatens to cut states' election funding over false claims of voter fraud (Guardian)
The president falsely cited the risk of voter fraud in tweeted threats to defund Nevada and Michigan, both 2020 swing states...
The president falsely cited the risk of voter fraud in tweeted threats to defund Nevada and Michigan, both 2020 swing states...
115margd
Appeals court orders Flynn judge to defend actions, as legal scholars weigh in
Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow | May 21, 2020
An appeals court Thursday ordered the judge in Michael Flynn’s case to defend his actions after Flynn’s attorneys asked that his conviction be dismissed immediately, as requested by the Justice Department.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step of ordering U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to answer within 10 days accusations from Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The court also invited the Justice Department to comment.
The order comes as legal scholars from across the political spectrum debated the case’s implications for judicial independence and the Constitution’s separation-of-powers design.
“This case does not involve a decision by the Executive Branch simply to ‘drop’ a prosecution,” but a “virtually unprecedented decision” to dismiss a case after it has been won, wrote a group of about 20 legal experts, led by Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, in a brief to be filed Friday.
Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case and invited outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s May 7 request to toss the former three-star general’s conviction. Sullivan also asked the retired judge to examine whether Flynn may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.
Flynn’s attorneys responded Tuesday by asking the D.C. Circuit to intervene, accusing Sullivan of bias and overreaching into what they called prosecutors’ exclusive authority to decide whether to drop a case....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/appeals-court-orders-federal-j...
Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow | May 21, 2020
An appeals court Thursday ordered the judge in Michael Flynn’s case to defend his actions after Flynn’s attorneys asked that his conviction be dismissed immediately, as requested by the Justice Department.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step of ordering U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to answer within 10 days accusations from Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The court also invited the Justice Department to comment.
The order comes as legal scholars from across the political spectrum debated the case’s implications for judicial independence and the Constitution’s separation-of-powers design.
“This case does not involve a decision by the Executive Branch simply to ‘drop’ a prosecution,” but a “virtually unprecedented decision” to dismiss a case after it has been won, wrote a group of about 20 legal experts, led by Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, in a brief to be filed Friday.
Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case and invited outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s May 7 request to toss the former three-star general’s conviction. Sullivan also asked the retired judge to examine whether Flynn may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.
Flynn’s attorneys responded Tuesday by asking the D.C. Circuit to intervene, accusing Sullivan of bias and overreaching into what they called prosecutors’ exclusive authority to decide whether to drop a case....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/appeals-court-orders-federal-j...
116margd
DOJ’s new attack on public health orders is ‘deviant and inappropriate’: Law professor
Matthew Chapman | May 22, 2020
On Friday, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit filed by a Republican state legislator in Illinois, trying to strike down Gov. J. B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders. The DOJ’s filing both praises the legislator’s “strong case” against the governor and urges federal courts to return the matter to state courts, where judges had been more friendly to the GOP’s claims...
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/dojs-new-attack-on-public-health-orders-is-devi...
_______________________________________________
Marty Lederman (Georgetown Law Prof) @marty_lederman:
It's virtually impossible to convey just how deviant and inappropriate it is for the DOJ Civil Rights Division to file a brief such as this, most of which is on a pure question of state statutory law. /1
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6923254/DOJ-statement-of-interest.pdf (21 p)
To do so now, in order to help stymie a state's efforts to stop the spread of a deadly contagion, is as brazen as anything I've seen since DOJ argued that the 2017 Congress & President Trump enacted a mandate to purchase health insurance. /2
I suppose that in the absence of all that citizenship information, they can't enforce the Voting Rights Act, and therefore they must have been sittin' around looking for something, anything, to do, when finally some visionary piped up: ... /3
"Hey, have you guys heard about how the Illinois Governor is construing section 3305/2(a)(2) of title 20 of the Illinois Compiled Statues? We'd better get right on that, stat!" /4
Matthew Chapman | May 22, 2020
On Friday, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit filed by a Republican state legislator in Illinois, trying to strike down Gov. J. B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders. The DOJ’s filing both praises the legislator’s “strong case” against the governor and urges federal courts to return the matter to state courts, where judges had been more friendly to the GOP’s claims...
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/dojs-new-attack-on-public-health-orders-is-devi...
_______________________________________________
Marty Lederman (Georgetown Law Prof) @marty_lederman:
It's virtually impossible to convey just how deviant and inappropriate it is for the DOJ Civil Rights Division to file a brief such as this, most of which is on a pure question of state statutory law. /1
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6923254/DOJ-statement-of-interest.pdf (21 p)
To do so now, in order to help stymie a state's efforts to stop the spread of a deadly contagion, is as brazen as anything I've seen since DOJ argued that the 2017 Congress & President Trump enacted a mandate to purchase health insurance. /2
I suppose that in the absence of all that citizenship information, they can't enforce the Voting Rights Act, and therefore they must have been sittin' around looking for something, anything, to do, when finally some visionary piped up: ... /3
"Hey, have you guys heard about how the Illinois Governor is construing section 3305/2(a)(2) of title 20 of the Illinois Compiled Statues? We'd better get right on that, stat!" /4
117margd
Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck | May 30th 2020,
There's a fair amount of disinformation and misinformation going around about the federal government's legal authority to use troops to help respond to the unrest in Minneapolis.
Here's a short #thread with answers (and citations to authority) for the five big questions:
1. "Isn't the military already on the ground"?
2. "Doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act bar use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement?"
3. "Doesn't the Governor have to request troops before the President can send them?"
4. "But if the Governor has already called out the National Guard, doesn't that block them from being federalized?"
5. "Okay, fine. So what are the actual limits on when the President can use Guard or regular troops for domestic law enforcement?"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1266752508577435649.html
There's a fair amount of disinformation and misinformation going around about the federal government's legal authority to use troops to help respond to the unrest in Minneapolis.
Here's a short #thread with answers (and citations to authority) for the five big questions:
1. "Isn't the military already on the ground"?
2. "Doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act bar use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement?"
3. "Doesn't the Governor have to request troops before the President can send them?"
4. "But if the Governor has already called out the National Guard, doesn't that block them from being federalized?"
5. "Okay, fine. So what are the actual limits on when the President can use Guard or regular troops for domestic law enforcement?"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1266752508577435649.html
118margd
A letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper
James N. Miller | June 2, 2020
...I resign from the Defense Science Board, effective immediately.
When I joined the Board in early 2014, after leaving government service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I again swore an oath of office, one familiar to you, that includes the commitment to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
You recited that same oath on July 23, 2019, when you were sworn in as Secretary of Defense. On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath. Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op. You then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church for that photo...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/secretary-esper-you-violated-...
James N. Miller | June 2, 2020
...I resign from the Defense Science Board, effective immediately.
When I joined the Board in early 2014, after leaving government service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I again swore an oath of office, one familiar to you, that includes the commitment to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
You recited that same oath on July 23, 2019, when you were sworn in as Secretary of Defense. On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath. Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op. You then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church for that photo...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/secretary-esper-you-violated-...
119margd
Use of medical helicopter to target protesters is under investigation, National Guard says
Alex Horton | June 2, 2020
...the use of medevac helicopters during demonstrations after curfew stunned justice experts, who said the Red Cross symbolizes mercy.
“Misuse of the Red Cross symbol is prohibited even during peacetime by the First Geneva Convention, to which the U.S. is a party,” said Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.
Linking the symbol with law enforcement, VanLandingham said, can weaken its “effectiveness as signifying medical and humanitarian assistance, a symbol of trust that is needed to give those vehicles with that symbol needed access where they are needed during armed conflict.”
It is unclear whether the helicopter was one of few available. VanLandingham said it might have been prudent to consider covering up the Red Crosses before flight.
The use of the helicopter also may violate Army regulations, Corn said, including domestic operations that outline the use of medical resources for “the evacuation of patients, movement of medical supplies and personnel, and support of search and rescue activities.”
Flying low in urban areas presents numerous risks to the pilots, crew, aircraft and people on the ground, Hunter said, factors that are typically considered before flying such a mission....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/02/helicopter-protest-d...
Alex Horton | June 2, 2020
...the use of medevac helicopters during demonstrations after curfew stunned justice experts, who said the Red Cross symbolizes mercy.
“Misuse of the Red Cross symbol is prohibited even during peacetime by the First Geneva Convention, to which the U.S. is a party,” said Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.
Linking the symbol with law enforcement, VanLandingham said, can weaken its “effectiveness as signifying medical and humanitarian assistance, a symbol of trust that is needed to give those vehicles with that symbol needed access where they are needed during armed conflict.”
It is unclear whether the helicopter was one of few available. VanLandingham said it might have been prudent to consider covering up the Red Crosses before flight.
The use of the helicopter also may violate Army regulations, Corn said, including domestic operations that outline the use of medical resources for “the evacuation of patients, movement of medical supplies and personnel, and support of search and rescue activities.”
Flying low in urban areas presents numerous risks to the pilots, crew, aircraft and people on the ground, Hunter said, factors that are typically considered before flying such a mission....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/02/helicopter-protest-d...
120margd
Your Lincoln Memorial this evening.
Image ( https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz/status/1267972382590984195/photo/1 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz/status/1267972382590984195/photo/2 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz/status/1267972382590984195/photo/3 )
- Martha Raddatz @MarthaRaddatz | 8:12 PM · Jun 2, 2020
Image ( https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz/status/1267972382590984195/photo/1 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz/status/1267972382590984195/photo/2 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz/status/1267972382590984195/photo/3 )
- Martha Raddatz @MarthaRaddatz | 8:12 PM · Jun 2, 2020
121margd
This touches on the question of DC statehood--and federal authority.
GOP's Mike Lee blasts claim of DC plan to evict National Guard troops from city hotels
Edmund DeMarche | June 5, 2020
...Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, says he's hearing that Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser plans to evict at least 1,200 National Guard troops from city hotels* after she clashed with President Trump over the handling of George Floyd unrest in the city.
...(DC Mayor Murial) Bowser has spoken out against the need for federal troops in the city. “We are examining every legal question about the president’s authority to send troops, even National Guard, to the District of Columbia...Another way to put it is, does the president have the legal authority to request National Guard from other states? I have the authority to request guards from other states.”...due to Washington, D.C.’s lack of statehood, the federal government can “encroach on our city streets in the name of protecting federal assets...
Bowser said the administration had floated the idea of taking over the Metropolitan Police Department, a proposal she strongly rejected. She threatened to take legal action if the federal government attempted to do so.
“I think it’s unprecedented,” she said. She told host Rachel Maddow she was concerned with outside state troopers and federal police officers patroling without any identification....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gops-mike-lee-blasts-claim-of-dc-plan-to-evict-...
_____________________________________________________
* Third Amendment--No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ( "... not only is it the least litigated amendment in the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of it... )
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment...
GOP's Mike Lee blasts claim of DC plan to evict National Guard troops from city hotels
Edmund DeMarche | June 5, 2020
...Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, says he's hearing that Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser plans to evict at least 1,200 National Guard troops from city hotels* after she clashed with President Trump over the handling of George Floyd unrest in the city.
...(DC Mayor Murial) Bowser has spoken out against the need for federal troops in the city. “We are examining every legal question about the president’s authority to send troops, even National Guard, to the District of Columbia...Another way to put it is, does the president have the legal authority to request National Guard from other states? I have the authority to request guards from other states.”...due to Washington, D.C.’s lack of statehood, the federal government can “encroach on our city streets in the name of protecting federal assets...
Bowser said the administration had floated the idea of taking over the Metropolitan Police Department, a proposal she strongly rejected. She threatened to take legal action if the federal government attempted to do so.
“I think it’s unprecedented,” she said. She told host Rachel Maddow she was concerned with outside state troopers and federal police officers patroling without any identification....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gops-mike-lee-blasts-claim-of-dc-plan-to-evict-...
_____________________________________________________
* Third Amendment--No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ( "... not only is it the least litigated amendment in the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of it... )
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment...
122margd
Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation
Steve Vladeck | Tuesday, June 9, 2020
...One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)...
32 U.S.C. § 502(f)...
(f)(1) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, a member of the National Guard may—
(A) without his consent, but with the pay and allowances provided by law; or
(B) with his consent, either with or without pay and allowances;
be ordered to perform training or other duty in addition to that prescribed under subsection (a) N.B. § 502(a) speaks only to training.
(2) The training or duty ordered to be performed under paragraph (1) may include the following:
(A) Support of operations or missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.
...“operations or missions undertaken ... at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.” This provision was added to § 502 in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, the legislative history of which is somewhat less than clear as to its purpose and scope.
...Ultimately, one of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does allow the federal government to use out-of-state National Guard troops as it did last week in Washington—for any purpose and under federal control—which is deeply concerning and crying out for some kind of legislative reform. Or it doesn’t, and upwards of 5,000 out-of-state National Guard troops were unlawfully deployed to Washington last week.
Either answer is unsettling, to say the least.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-were-out-state-national-guard-units-washington-d...
Also, from article above:
...Although four of the six federal territories have National Guards (all but American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), the National Guards for Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are commanded by the territorial governors. D.C.’s Guard, in contrast, is always at the command and control of the president of the United States—at least in part because the Guard predates the creation of the D.C. local government in the early 1970s.
Steve Vladeck | Tuesday, June 9, 2020
...One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)...
32 U.S.C. § 502(f)...
(f)(1) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, a member of the National Guard may—
(A) without his consent, but with the pay and allowances provided by law; or
(B) with his consent, either with or without pay and allowances;
be ordered to perform training or other duty in addition to that prescribed under subsection (a) N.B. § 502(a) speaks only to training.
(2) The training or duty ordered to be performed under paragraph (1) may include the following:
(A) Support of operations or missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.
...“operations or missions undertaken ... at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.” This provision was added to § 502 in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, the legislative history of which is somewhat less than clear as to its purpose and scope.
...Ultimately, one of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does allow the federal government to use out-of-state National Guard troops as it did last week in Washington—for any purpose and under federal control—which is deeply concerning and crying out for some kind of legislative reform. Or it doesn’t, and upwards of 5,000 out-of-state National Guard troops were unlawfully deployed to Washington last week.
Either answer is unsettling, to say the least.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-were-out-state-national-guard-units-washington-d...
Also, from article above:
...Although four of the six federal territories have National Guards (all but American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), the National Guards for Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are commanded by the territorial governors. D.C.’s Guard, in contrast, is always at the command and control of the president of the United States—at least in part because the Guard predates the creation of the D.C. local government in the early 1970s.
123margd
Appeals court orders judge to dismiss Michael Flynn case
Katelyn Polantz | June 24, 2020
...In late April, Trump, Flynn's legal team and conservative allies seized on the disclosure of a hand-written note from a top FBI official outlining how agents may either refer Flynn for prosecution for illegally negotiating with a foreign government or "get him to lie" or "get him fired." Trump used the document to argue that Flynn should be "exonerated" and that the charges should be dropped. He also suggested that he's considering a full pardon for Flynn.
The three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday decided the trial judge, Sullivan, didn't have enough reason to question the DOJ's prosecution decisions in this case. They also said Sullivan having a third-party attorney weigh in on Flynn's case, the former judge John Gleeson, isn't needed anymore.
Sullivan "fails to justify the district court's unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive's charging authority," DC appeals court Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote in the majority opinion.
Appeals court Judge Robert Wilkins disagreed with the decision of Rao and Judge Karen Henderson to short-circuit the Flynn case in the trial court immediately. It's possible the case could continue on in future appeals, given how it is largely about the power of the judiciary, a weighty subject in a case other appeals court judges may take interest in.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/michael-flynn-dismiss/index.html
____________________________________________
Joshua A. Geltzer @jgeltzer | 10:26 AM · Jun 24, 2020:
Astonishing:
The DC Circuit panel that just ruled for Flynn is saying that DOJ has zero obligation even to explain to a judge why it's going easy on a Trump crony (Flynn)--literally 2 hours before a career DOJ lawyer will testify to Congress about DOJ going easy on another Trump crony! (Stone)
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 10:40 AM · Jun 24, 2020:
Astonishing barely begins to describe this travesty. En banc review* seems mandatory.
Robert J. DeNault @robertjdenault | 10:20 AM · Jun 24, 2020:
For folks rushing to say this is the conclusion of the Flynn saga—please recognize for your followers that this is a 2-1 panel decision, and that the full DC Circuit can now schedule an en banc review* if it wants to reverse.
Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes | 11:01 AM · Jun 24, 2020
After a quick scan of the DC Circuit opinion on the Flynn case, three quick thoughts:
(1) I am confident the majority view on this panel does not represent the majority view on the DC Circuit, which greatly disfavors granting mandamus relief.
(2) I am not confident, however, that the full Court will hear the matter (though it certainly may), as the DC Circuit also greatly disfavors en banc review.*
(3) I do expect Judge Sullivan to put the matter quickly before the full court, as he has little reason not to and his ability to manage his case is being challenged here by the defendant, the Justice Department, and the panel majority.
(4) Look for a quick move for a stay and an appeal en banc.
Ok, yeah, that’s four quick thoughts....
(5) And here’s a fifth: yes, the full court can review the matter on its own motion, that is, without a move from Judge Sullivan. But I don’t think that will likely be necessary, as I can think of no reason why Judge Sullivan wouldn’t seek en banc review of this ruling.
*In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by one judge or a panel of judges selected from them. (wikipedia
Katelyn Polantz | June 24, 2020
...In late April, Trump, Flynn's legal team and conservative allies seized on the disclosure of a hand-written note from a top FBI official outlining how agents may either refer Flynn for prosecution for illegally negotiating with a foreign government or "get him to lie" or "get him fired." Trump used the document to argue that Flynn should be "exonerated" and that the charges should be dropped. He also suggested that he's considering a full pardon for Flynn.
The three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday decided the trial judge, Sullivan, didn't have enough reason to question the DOJ's prosecution decisions in this case. They also said Sullivan having a third-party attorney weigh in on Flynn's case, the former judge John Gleeson, isn't needed anymore.
Sullivan "fails to justify the district court's unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive's charging authority," DC appeals court Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote in the majority opinion.
Appeals court Judge Robert Wilkins disagreed with the decision of Rao and Judge Karen Henderson to short-circuit the Flynn case in the trial court immediately. It's possible the case could continue on in future appeals, given how it is largely about the power of the judiciary, a weighty subject in a case other appeals court judges may take interest in.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/michael-flynn-dismiss/index.html
____________________________________________
Joshua A. Geltzer @jgeltzer | 10:26 AM · Jun 24, 2020:
Astonishing:
The DC Circuit panel that just ruled for Flynn is saying that DOJ has zero obligation even to explain to a judge why it's going easy on a Trump crony (Flynn)--literally 2 hours before a career DOJ lawyer will testify to Congress about DOJ going easy on another Trump crony! (Stone)
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 10:40 AM · Jun 24, 2020:
Astonishing barely begins to describe this travesty. En banc review* seems mandatory.
Robert J. DeNault @robertjdenault | 10:20 AM · Jun 24, 2020:
For folks rushing to say this is the conclusion of the Flynn saga—please recognize for your followers that this is a 2-1 panel decision, and that the full DC Circuit can now schedule an en banc review* if it wants to reverse.
Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes | 11:01 AM · Jun 24, 2020
After a quick scan of the DC Circuit opinion on the Flynn case, three quick thoughts:
(1) I am confident the majority view on this panel does not represent the majority view on the DC Circuit, which greatly disfavors granting mandamus relief.
(2) I am not confident, however, that the full Court will hear the matter (though it certainly may), as the DC Circuit also greatly disfavors en banc review.*
(3) I do expect Judge Sullivan to put the matter quickly before the full court, as he has little reason not to and his ability to manage his case is being challenged here by the defendant, the Justice Department, and the panel majority.
(4) Look for a quick move for a stay and an appeal en banc.
Ok, yeah, that’s four quick thoughts....
(5) And here’s a fifth: yes, the full court can review the matter on its own motion, that is, without a move from Judge Sullivan. But I don’t think that will likely be necessary, as I can think of no reason why Judge Sullivan wouldn’t seek en banc review of this ruling.
*In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by one judge or a panel of judges selected from them. (wikipedia
124margd
9th Circ. Says Trump Can't Divert Funds For Border Wall
--Alyssa Miller (ed) Law360 | June 26, 2020, 12:23 PM EDT
The Trump administration does not have the authority to transfer $2.5 billion in defense funds to finance the construction of the president's long-promised border wall, the Ninth Circuit held Friday.
In a 2-1 ruling siding with environmental organizations, the federal appeals court panel said that President Donald Trump's decision to authorize the transfer of funds earmarked for other purposes by Congress toward the border wall violated the Appropriations Clause, which gives Congress the power to control government spending.
"The Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds," Chief Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote for the majority. "These funds were appropriated for other purposes, and the transfer amounted to 'drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause.'"
The case is Sierra Club et al. v. Donald Trump et al., case number 19-16102, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1287174
--Alyssa Miller (ed) Law360 | June 26, 2020, 12:23 PM EDT
The Trump administration does not have the authority to transfer $2.5 billion in defense funds to finance the construction of the president's long-promised border wall, the Ninth Circuit held Friday.
In a 2-1 ruling siding with environmental organizations, the federal appeals court panel said that President Donald Trump's decision to authorize the transfer of funds earmarked for other purposes by Congress toward the border wall violated the Appropriations Clause, which gives Congress the power to control government spending.
"The Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds," Chief Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote for the majority. "These funds were appropriated for other purposes, and the transfer amounted to 'drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause.'"
The case is Sierra Club et al. v. Donald Trump et al., case number 19-16102, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1287174
125margd
Supreme Court says states may require presidential electors to support popular-vote winner
Robert Barnes | July 6, 2020
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states may require presidential electors to support the winner of the popular vote and punish or replace those who don’t, settling a disputed issue in advance of this fall’s election.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, and settled the disputed “faithless elector” issue before it affected the coming presidential contest.
The Washington state law at issue “reflects a tradition more than two centuries old,” she wrote. “In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the state’s voters have chosen.”
Lower courts had split on the issue, with one saying the Constitution forbids dictating how such officials cast their ballots.
Both red and blue states urged the justices to settle the matter in advance of the “white hot” glare of the 2020 election. They said they feared a handful of independent-minded members of the electoral college deciding the next president...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-electoral-colle...
Robert Barnes | July 6, 2020
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states may require presidential electors to support the winner of the popular vote and punish or replace those who don’t, settling a disputed issue in advance of this fall’s election.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, and settled the disputed “faithless elector” issue before it affected the coming presidential contest.
The Washington state law at issue “reflects a tradition more than two centuries old,” she wrote. “In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the state’s voters have chosen.”
Lower courts had split on the issue, with one saying the Constitution forbids dictating how such officials cast their ballots.
Both red and blue states urged the justices to settle the matter in advance of the “white hot” glare of the 2020 election. They said they feared a handful of independent-minded members of the electoral college deciding the next president...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-electoral-colle...
126margd
>123 margd: Flynn, contd.
Judge Sullivan petitions for rehearing en banc in Flynn mandamus case.
https://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Flynn.petition.enbanc.pdf
- Marty Lederman (Georgetown Law) @marty_lederman 3:04 PM · Jul 9, 2020
Judge Sullivan petitions for rehearing en banc in Flynn mandamus case.
https://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Flynn.petition.enbanc.pdf
- Marty Lederman (Georgetown Law) @marty_lederman 3:04 PM · Jul 9, 2020
127margd
Stone is Trump's 36th pardon/commutation, a record low number, by far, for the modern presidency.
An unusually high number of these (31/36 by my count), like Stone's, were based on a personal or political connection.
Both are forms of abuse of an undoubted presidential power.
Trump is unusual in a third way. He has almost entirely bypassed/ignored the pardon attorney in DOJ who is supposed to vet and recommend pardons. Past presidents have done this occasionally, Trump has done so as a way of life, to paraphrase Bolton.
- Jack Goldsmith (Harvard law prof) @jacklgoldsmith9:37 PM · Jul 10, 2020
_________________________________________________
G Mason: "The president ought not to have the power of pardoning b/c he may pardon crimes advised by himself."
J Madison's reply: "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner w/ any person & there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House can impeach him."
- Joshua A. Geltzer @jgeltzer10:50 PM · Jul 10, 2020
An unusually high number of these (31/36 by my count), like Stone's, were based on a personal or political connection.
Both are forms of abuse of an undoubted presidential power.
Trump is unusual in a third way. He has almost entirely bypassed/ignored the pardon attorney in DOJ who is supposed to vet and recommend pardons. Past presidents have done this occasionally, Trump has done so as a way of life, to paraphrase Bolton.
- Jack Goldsmith (Harvard law prof) @jacklgoldsmith9:37 PM · Jul 10, 2020
_________________________________________________
G Mason: "The president ought not to have the power of pardoning b/c he may pardon crimes advised by himself."
J Madison's reply: "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner w/ any person & there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House can impeach him."
- Joshua A. Geltzer @jgeltzer10:50 PM · Jul 10, 2020
128margd
Twelve signs Trump would try to run a fascist dictatorship in a second term
Jonathan Greenberg | July 10, 2020
1. Trump uses military power and federal law enforcement to suppress peaceful political protest.
2. Trump persistently lies about voter fraud, setting the stage for him to use emergency powers to seize control of the election or challenge the results if he loses.
3. Trump has repeatedly suggested that he might remain in office after a second term and has offered reason to doubt he’d leave peacefully after this first term.
4. Trump appears to believe he has the power to outlaw speech critical of him, and he calls the free press “the enemy of the people.”
5. With Fox News promoting Trump’s lies as truth, the president controls one of the most powerful propaganda machines ever created.
6. Trump believes that he has the power to do what he wants, regardless of Congress or the courts.
7. Trump acts as if he owns our government and can fire any official who defends the law.
8. Trump uses federal prosecutorial powers to investigate his opponents and anyone who dares scrutinize him or his allies for the many crimes they may have committed.
9. Trump viciously attacks his critics and has publicly implied that the Ukraine whistleblower should be hanged for treason.
10. Trump has messianic delusions that are supported with religious fervor by millions of his supporters.
11. Trump subscribes to a doctrine of genetic superiority and incites racial hatred to scapegoat immigrants and gain power.
12. Trump finds common ground with the world’s most ruthless dictators while denigrating America’s democratic allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/fascist-dictatorship-trump-second-term/20...
Jonathan Greenberg | July 10, 2020
1. Trump uses military power and federal law enforcement to suppress peaceful political protest.
2. Trump persistently lies about voter fraud, setting the stage for him to use emergency powers to seize control of the election or challenge the results if he loses.
3. Trump has repeatedly suggested that he might remain in office after a second term and has offered reason to doubt he’d leave peacefully after this first term.
4. Trump appears to believe he has the power to outlaw speech critical of him, and he calls the free press “the enemy of the people.”
5. With Fox News promoting Trump’s lies as truth, the president controls one of the most powerful propaganda machines ever created.
6. Trump believes that he has the power to do what he wants, regardless of Congress or the courts.
7. Trump acts as if he owns our government and can fire any official who defends the law.
8. Trump uses federal prosecutorial powers to investigate his opponents and anyone who dares scrutinize him or his allies for the many crimes they may have committed.
9. Trump viciously attacks his critics and has publicly implied that the Ukraine whistleblower should be hanged for treason.
10. Trump has messianic delusions that are supported with religious fervor by millions of his supporters.
11. Trump subscribes to a doctrine of genetic superiority and incites racial hatred to scapegoat immigrants and gain power.
12. Trump finds common ground with the world’s most ruthless dictators while denigrating America’s democratic allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/fascist-dictatorship-trump-second-term/20...
129margd
A first draft? #10 doesn't sound like much of a deterrent to future self-serving pardons?
Post-Roger Stone: Ten ideas for repairing Trump’s justice system
Jennifer Rubin | July 12, 2020
1. A thorough redo of the special counsel/independent counsel law is necessary.
2. Congress must reassert the power of the purse.
3. Severe criminal penalties should be exacted for revealing the identity of whistleblowers or threatening and/or punishing federal employees for providing truthful testimony.
4. A new, speedy enforcement mechanism is required for contempt of Congress citations, allowing lawmakers to get a swift and definitive resolution of its conflicts with the executive branch.
5. We need a barrier between the White House and Justice Department to prevent political interference in specific cases, targets of investigation and prosecutorial recommendations.
6. Legislation should specify that solicitation of campaign help from a foreign government is illegal.
7. Beefed-up ethical training and guidelines for Justice attorneys should reaffirm they are obligated to report to the inspector general and/or courts any political interference in cases involving the president, his relatives and associates.
8. The order of succession (before confirmation of a replacement) in the event of termination or resignation of the attorney general or a U.S. attorney should be written into law.
9. The president and vice president must be required to release 10 years of tax returns and to place all financial holdings in a blind trust.
10. Congress should enact a proposed law directing DOJ to provide Congress with “all investigative materials related to an offense for which the President pardons an individual if the offense arises from an investigation in which the President, or a relative of the President, is a target, subject, or witness.”
...Trump has demonstrated that legal norms are not sufficient to prevent gross executive overreach. The solution must entail legal restraints on the executive branch to prevent future presidents from following Trump’s example and to restore confidence in the Justice Department.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/12/ten-ideas-post-trump-reform/
Post-Roger Stone: Ten ideas for repairing Trump’s justice system
Jennifer Rubin | July 12, 2020
1. A thorough redo of the special counsel/independent counsel law is necessary.
2. Congress must reassert the power of the purse.
3. Severe criminal penalties should be exacted for revealing the identity of whistleblowers or threatening and/or punishing federal employees for providing truthful testimony.
4. A new, speedy enforcement mechanism is required for contempt of Congress citations, allowing lawmakers to get a swift and definitive resolution of its conflicts with the executive branch.
5. We need a barrier between the White House and Justice Department to prevent political interference in specific cases, targets of investigation and prosecutorial recommendations.
6. Legislation should specify that solicitation of campaign help from a foreign government is illegal.
7. Beefed-up ethical training and guidelines for Justice attorneys should reaffirm they are obligated to report to the inspector general and/or courts any political interference in cases involving the president, his relatives and associates.
8. The order of succession (before confirmation of a replacement) in the event of termination or resignation of the attorney general or a U.S. attorney should be written into law.
9. The president and vice president must be required to release 10 years of tax returns and to place all financial holdings in a blind trust.
10. Congress should enact a proposed law directing DOJ to provide Congress with “all investigative materials related to an offense for which the President pardons an individual if the offense arises from an investigation in which the President, or a relative of the President, is a target, subject, or witness.”
...Trump has demonstrated that legal norms are not sufficient to prevent gross executive overreach. The solution must entail legal restraints on the executive branch to prevent future presidents from following Trump’s example and to restore confidence in the Justice Department.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/12/ten-ideas-post-trump-reform/
130margd
Time to Amend the Presidential Pardon Power
Keith E. Whittington | July 14, 2020
...An amendment to alter the presidential pardon power should be an easier lift than some other constitutional reforms that might be suggested. It is not the kind of issue that has a clear partisan valence or that has an entrenched interest incentivized to protect the status quo. This is the kind of issue about which it should be possible to win agreement across the political aisle in order to prevent future presidents from abusing the power in the way that past presidents have. Like the 22nd Amendment, which was passed in the wake of Franklin D. Roosevelt violating the long-standing two-term presidency convention, a presidential pardon amendment could be motivated by the recent example of one party’s president, but it would not necessarily play to any party’s future advantage or disadvantage. Like the 22nd Amendment, it would be simple enough to set the operative date for such an amendment to begin with the next presidential term of office so as not to be seen as a swipe at the sitting president...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/time-amend-presidential-pardon-power
Keith E. Whittington | July 14, 2020
...An amendment to alter the presidential pardon power should be an easier lift than some other constitutional reforms that might be suggested. It is not the kind of issue that has a clear partisan valence or that has an entrenched interest incentivized to protect the status quo. This is the kind of issue about which it should be possible to win agreement across the political aisle in order to prevent future presidents from abusing the power in the way that past presidents have. Like the 22nd Amendment, which was passed in the wake of Franklin D. Roosevelt violating the long-standing two-term presidency convention, a presidential pardon amendment could be motivated by the recent example of one party’s president, but it would not necessarily play to any party’s future advantage or disadvantage. Like the 22nd Amendment, it would be simple enough to set the operative date for such an amendment to begin with the next presidential term of office so as not to be seen as a swipe at the sitting president...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/time-amend-presidential-pardon-power
131margd
Scoop: Trump's license to skirt the law
Alayna Treene, Stef W. Kight | 7/19/2020
President Trump and top White House officials are privately considering a controversial strategy to act without legal authority to enact new federal policies — starting with immigration, administration officials tell Axios.
Between the lines: The White House thinking is being heavily influenced by John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the Bush administration's justification for waterboarding after 9/11.
Yoo detailed the theory in a National Review article, spotted atop Trump’s desk in the Oval Office, which argues that the Supreme Court's 5-4 DACA ruling last month "makes it easy for presidents to violate the law."
...Yoo writes that the ruling, and actions by President Obama, pave the way for Trump to implement policies that Congress won't.
Some could remain in force for years even if he loses re-election.
What's next: The first test could come imminently. Trump has said he is about to unveil a "very major" immigration policy via executive order, which he says the Supreme Court gave him the power to do.
...Reality check: (Yoo's) is a somewhat strained reading of both procedural history and the law, according to Axios’ Sam Baker. The Supreme Court has never ruled either way on DACA’s legality...But the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to decide the merits of anything Trump does before the election.
...What we're watching: Trump told Chris Wallace in an interview for "Fox News Sunday" that in addition to replacing DACA with "something much better," he's also going to be unveiling a health care plan within two weeks "that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do."...
https://www.axios.com/trump-executive-orders-supreme-court-daca-3d369f16-d9db-4e...
Alayna Treene, Stef W. Kight | 7/19/2020
President Trump and top White House officials are privately considering a controversial strategy to act without legal authority to enact new federal policies — starting with immigration, administration officials tell Axios.
Between the lines: The White House thinking is being heavily influenced by John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the Bush administration's justification for waterboarding after 9/11.
Yoo detailed the theory in a National Review article, spotted atop Trump’s desk in the Oval Office, which argues that the Supreme Court's 5-4 DACA ruling last month "makes it easy for presidents to violate the law."
...Yoo writes that the ruling, and actions by President Obama, pave the way for Trump to implement policies that Congress won't.
Some could remain in force for years even if he loses re-election.
What's next: The first test could come imminently. Trump has said he is about to unveil a "very major" immigration policy via executive order, which he says the Supreme Court gave him the power to do.
...Reality check: (Yoo's) is a somewhat strained reading of both procedural history and the law, according to Axios’ Sam Baker. The Supreme Court has never ruled either way on DACA’s legality...But the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to decide the merits of anything Trump does before the election.
...What we're watching: Trump told Chris Wallace in an interview for "Fox News Sunday" that in addition to replacing DACA with "something much better," he's also going to be unveiling a health care plan within two weeks "that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do."...
https://www.axios.com/trump-executive-orders-supreme-court-daca-3d369f16-d9db-4e...
132John5918
>131 margd: Also in the Guardian: Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree
The Trump administration has been consulting the former government lawyer who wrote the legal justification for waterboarding on how the president might try to rule by decree.
John Yoo told the Guardian he has been talking to White House officials about his view that a recent supreme court ruling on immigration would allow Trump to issue executive orders on whether to apply existing federal laws.
“If the court really believes what it just did, then it just handed President Trump a great deal of power, too”...
The Trump administration has been consulting the former government lawyer who wrote the legal justification for waterboarding on how the president might try to rule by decree.
John Yoo told the Guardian he has been talking to White House officials about his view that a recent supreme court ruling on immigration would allow Trump to issue executive orders on whether to apply existing federal laws.
“If the court really believes what it just did, then it just handed President Trump a great deal of power, too”...
133margd
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:57 AM · Jul 22, 2020:
The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: Trump’s “latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional.” I agree. Sec.2 of the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer. EVERYONE must be taken into account.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trump Tries Last-Ditch Order to Keep Undocumented Off Census
Trump’s plan to subtract the number of undocumented immigrants from the total Census population appears to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Matt Stieb | July 21, 2020
...After the citizenship question was knocked down by the Supreme Court last summer, Trump vowed to use data provided by other federal agencies to determine the “number of citizens and noncitizens in our country.”
On Tuesday, the White House used that data, despite its questionable accuracy, as part of an executive order banning undocumented immigrants from the Census count determining how many members of Congress are apportioned to each state. The memo requires Wilbur Ross — the head of the Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census — to provide Trump with data collected by the Department of Homeland Security so that the White House may subtract the number of undocumented Americans from the Census’s population total to determine how many seats each state will have in Congress.
Trump’s order states that “illegal aliens are not to be included for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives following the 2020 Census.” However, his language appears to be in direct violation of the second clause of the 14th Amendment, which determines that the Census must count “the whole number of persons in each State.” Because the Constitution does not determine between citizens and noncitizens, it is likely that Trump’s order will be overturned; already Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, announced the group would sue the administration over the effort. “His latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional,” Ho said in a statement.
Democrats also condemned the effort, seen as a last-minute ruling “designed to again inject fear and distrust into vulnerable and traditionally undercounted communities,” according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised to “vigorously contest the president’s unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to impair the Census.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added that the order was “yet another racially driven attack by a president and administration that wrongly views immigrants as the enemy, when they are a vital part of our society.”...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/trump-tries-last-ditch-order-to-keep-und...
The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: Trump’s “latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional.” I agree. Sec.2 of the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer. EVERYONE must be taken into account.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trump Tries Last-Ditch Order to Keep Undocumented Off Census
Trump’s plan to subtract the number of undocumented immigrants from the total Census population appears to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Matt Stieb | July 21, 2020
...After the citizenship question was knocked down by the Supreme Court last summer, Trump vowed to use data provided by other federal agencies to determine the “number of citizens and noncitizens in our country.”
On Tuesday, the White House used that data, despite its questionable accuracy, as part of an executive order banning undocumented immigrants from the Census count determining how many members of Congress are apportioned to each state. The memo requires Wilbur Ross — the head of the Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census — to provide Trump with data collected by the Department of Homeland Security so that the White House may subtract the number of undocumented Americans from the Census’s population total to determine how many seats each state will have in Congress.
Trump’s order states that “illegal aliens are not to be included for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives following the 2020 Census.” However, his language appears to be in direct violation of the second clause of the 14th Amendment, which determines that the Census must count “the whole number of persons in each State.” Because the Constitution does not determine between citizens and noncitizens, it is likely that Trump’s order will be overturned; already Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, announced the group would sue the administration over the effort. “His latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional,” Ho said in a statement.
Democrats also condemned the effort, seen as a last-minute ruling “designed to again inject fear and distrust into vulnerable and traditionally undercounted communities,” according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised to “vigorously contest the president’s unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to impair the Census.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added that the order was “yet another racially driven attack by a president and administration that wrongly views immigrants as the enemy, when they are a vital part of our society.”...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/trump-tries-last-ditch-order-to-keep-und...
134margd
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 12:29 AM · Jul 22, 2020:
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI provides only a limited shield for federal officers violating state laws of general applicability in the course of discharging their duties. State criminal prosecution of Trump’s stormtroopers is thus entirely possible.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3612968527251140457&q=iDAHO+v.+...
McCulloch v. Md (1819) and In re Neagle (1890) frame the complex issue of intergovernmental immunities.
Federal agents aren’t free simply to ignore state laws (eg, against assault and battery or kidnapping) when purporting to follow the Attorney General’s orders.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI provides only a limited shield for federal officers violating state laws of general applicability in the course of discharging their duties. State criminal prosecution of Trump’s stormtroopers is thus entirely possible.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3612968527251140457&q=iDAHO+v.+...
McCulloch v. Md (1819) and In re Neagle (1890) frame the complex issue of intergovernmental immunities.
Federal agents aren’t free simply to ignore state laws (eg, against assault and battery or kidnapping) when purporting to follow the Attorney General’s orders.
135John5918
Trump is unleashing authoritarianism on US cities – just in time for the election (Guardian)
Democratic-run, minority-populated cities portrayed as plagued by anarchy are a much more useful political foil for Trump than peaceful metropolises...
Democratic-run, minority-populated cities portrayed as plagued by anarchy are a much more useful political foil for Trump than peaceful metropolises...
136John5918
Trump sued by watchdog over attempt to omit unauthorised migrants from census count (Independent)
‘The Constitution is unambiguous in its requirements relating to the census count and reapportionment of Congressional seats — all persons must be counted,’ says Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn...
‘The Constitution is unambiguous in its requirements relating to the census count and reapportionment of Congressional seats — all persons must be counted,’ says Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn...
137margd
>136 John5918: Also, Lawyers for Civil Rights Boston etc. representing Haitians, Brazilians, etc. (Plaintiffs with standing on this issue.)
See complaint at
http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/our-impact/immigrant-rights/undocumented-immigr...
See complaint at
http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/our-impact/immigrant-rights/undocumented-immigr...
138margd
Republicans consider South Lawn of the White House for Donald Trump’s convention speech
Michael Scherer and Josh Dawsey | August 4, 2020
Republican National Convention planners are considering the White House South Lawn as the site of President Trump’s nationally televised nomination acceptance speech later this month, according to a Republican familiar with the discussions.
The decision to stage the most high-profile political event of Trump’s reelection campaign at the national seat of presidential power would be just the latest break by Trump in presidential norms, which have historically drawn clear lines between official business of the president and campaign events.
People involved in the planning said that no final decision had been made on the location of the Republican convention’s celebratory events. Trump abandoned plans to hold the full convention in Charlotte, and later Jacksonville, Fla., over concerns that large crowds could spread the novel coronavirus.
...Several hundred Republican delegates plan to gather for a pared-down session of official meetings on Aug. 24 in Charlotte to nominate Trump. That will be followed by three more days of speeches and programming from undetermined sites, culminating in Trump’s acceptance speech on Aug. 27...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-consider-south-lawn-of-the-w...
Michael Scherer and Josh Dawsey | August 4, 2020
Republican National Convention planners are considering the White House South Lawn as the site of President Trump’s nationally televised nomination acceptance speech later this month, according to a Republican familiar with the discussions.
The decision to stage the most high-profile political event of Trump’s reelection campaign at the national seat of presidential power would be just the latest break by Trump in presidential norms, which have historically drawn clear lines between official business of the president and campaign events.
People involved in the planning said that no final decision had been made on the location of the Republican convention’s celebratory events. Trump abandoned plans to hold the full convention in Charlotte, and later Jacksonville, Fla., over concerns that large crowds could spread the novel coronavirus.
...Several hundred Republican delegates plan to gather for a pared-down session of official meetings on Aug. 24 in Charlotte to nominate Trump. That will be followed by three more days of speeches and programming from undetermined sites, culminating in Trump’s acceptance speech on Aug. 27...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-consider-south-lawn-of-the-w...
139John5918
Civil death: how millions of Americans lost their right to vote (Guardian)
Civil death is a form of punishment that extinguishes someone’s civil rights. It’s a concept that has been reshaped and reinterpreted over many generations, persisting in the form of felony disenfranchisement, through which a citizen loses their right to vote due to a felony conviction.
There are an estimated 6 million Americans who cannot vote in the country’s elections because of some form of civil death. Depending on the state they live in, they might even lose their right to vote permanently, or for years after they are released from prison. While the US has come to see this form of civil death as status quo, it is actually rare for a democratic country to take away a citizen’s voting rights after they leave prison, let alone forever. Countries like Germany and Denmark allow prisoners to vote while incarcerated, while others restore their rights immediately after release.
The US’s history of restricting the number of people who can vote in elections goes back to the colonies – and it’s a history that has disproportionately affected black people. Here is the story of how civil death in the US came to be...
Civil death is a form of punishment that extinguishes someone’s civil rights. It’s a concept that has been reshaped and reinterpreted over many generations, persisting in the form of felony disenfranchisement, through which a citizen loses their right to vote due to a felony conviction.
There are an estimated 6 million Americans who cannot vote in the country’s elections because of some form of civil death. Depending on the state they live in, they might even lose their right to vote permanently, or for years after they are released from prison. While the US has come to see this form of civil death as status quo, it is actually rare for a democratic country to take away a citizen’s voting rights after they leave prison, let alone forever. Countries like Germany and Denmark allow prisoners to vote while incarcerated, while others restore their rights immediately after release.
The US’s history of restricting the number of people who can vote in elections goes back to the colonies – and it’s a history that has disproportionately affected black people. Here is the story of how civil death in the US came to be...
140margd
Trump's weekend photo op reveals dangerous 2020 strategy: Populist Dictators for Dummies
Chris Truax |Aug 10, 2020
This is only the opening bell in perhaps the wildest, riskiest three months in US political history. We'll need grim determination to get through them.
...Donald Trump is playing politics with the Constitution. A year and a half ago, Trump declared an emergency because Congress would not give him money for his wall. That issue is still tied up in court and, at the time, a lot of us warned that this was an extremely dangerous precedent. Trump’s unilateral $400 a month “unemployment benefit” is even worse.
Trump set up his new program through a previously unimagined twisting of the Stafford Act that gives the president authority to take discrete actions to do things like provide housing and other assistance in the event of an emergency. Congress has authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to spend up to $70 billion on these kinds of programs through its Disaster Relief Fund, and that’s where Trump is getting the money to pay for this. Except, of course, Congress had thought that money was going to be spent on basic necessities after hurricanes rather than to make an end run around its constitutional authority to appropriate funds.
To see just how bad this is, suppose a future administration decides that systemic racism is a public health crisis and unilaterally decides to spend FEMA’s emergency funds on a presidential do-it-yourself reparations program.* Whatever you think about systemic racism and reparations, you should be aghast at the idea of a president imposing something like that unilaterally. Process matters.
But the very worst thing about what Trump has done is that this is exactly what wanna-be dictators do when they are trying to erode the rule of law and rule by decree. It's right out of Chapter 1 of Populist Dictators for Dummies: Paint the legislature as corrupt and ineffective, then take unilateral action of dubious legality because you cannot stand idly by while The People suffer.
Ridiculous, you say? Here’s what Trump had to say in the memorandum itself: “But Democratic Members of Congress have twice blocked temporary extensions of supplemental unemployment benefits. Political games that harm American lives are unacceptable, especially during a global pandemic, and therefore I am taking action to provide financial security to Americans.”
Whether what Trump is doing is technically legal is almost beside the point. It is dangerous. He is ruling by decree and daring Congress — and especially congressional Republicans — to challenge him...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/10/trump-2020-strategy-ignore-con...
* or Obama's DACA, as Tim Spalding warned...
________________________________________________
ETA:
The Lincoln Project @ProjectLincoln | 7:17 AM · Aug 10, 2020
Ouch.
0:32 ( https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1292782215756120065 )
From Bradd Jaffy
Chris Truax |Aug 10, 2020
This is only the opening bell in perhaps the wildest, riskiest three months in US political history. We'll need grim determination to get through them.
...Donald Trump is playing politics with the Constitution. A year and a half ago, Trump declared an emergency because Congress would not give him money for his wall. That issue is still tied up in court and, at the time, a lot of us warned that this was an extremely dangerous precedent. Trump’s unilateral $400 a month “unemployment benefit” is even worse.
Trump set up his new program through a previously unimagined twisting of the Stafford Act that gives the president authority to take discrete actions to do things like provide housing and other assistance in the event of an emergency. Congress has authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to spend up to $70 billion on these kinds of programs through its Disaster Relief Fund, and that’s where Trump is getting the money to pay for this. Except, of course, Congress had thought that money was going to be spent on basic necessities after hurricanes rather than to make an end run around its constitutional authority to appropriate funds.
To see just how bad this is, suppose a future administration decides that systemic racism is a public health crisis and unilaterally decides to spend FEMA’s emergency funds on a presidential do-it-yourself reparations program.* Whatever you think about systemic racism and reparations, you should be aghast at the idea of a president imposing something like that unilaterally. Process matters.
But the very worst thing about what Trump has done is that this is exactly what wanna-be dictators do when they are trying to erode the rule of law and rule by decree. It's right out of Chapter 1 of Populist Dictators for Dummies: Paint the legislature as corrupt and ineffective, then take unilateral action of dubious legality because you cannot stand idly by while The People suffer.
Ridiculous, you say? Here’s what Trump had to say in the memorandum itself: “But Democratic Members of Congress have twice blocked temporary extensions of supplemental unemployment benefits. Political games that harm American lives are unacceptable, especially during a global pandemic, and therefore I am taking action to provide financial security to Americans.”
Whether what Trump is doing is technically legal is almost beside the point. It is dangerous. He is ruling by decree and daring Congress — and especially congressional Republicans — to challenge him...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/10/trump-2020-strategy-ignore-con...
* or Obama's DACA, as Tim Spalding warned...
________________________________________________
ETA:
The Lincoln Project @ProjectLincoln | 7:17 AM · Aug 10, 2020
Ouch.
0:32 ( https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1292782215756120065 )
From Bradd Jaffy
141margd
Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 3:51 PM · Aug 15, 2020:
Excellent (32 p) brief for the House of Representatives challenging
Trump’s lawless attempt to turn the census and the apportionment process into a racist tool
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/08/2020.08....
Excellent (32 p) brief for the House of Representatives challenging
Trump’s lawless attempt to turn the census and the apportionment process into a racist tool
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/08/2020.08....
142John5918
Trump's Homeland Security chiefs are 'invalid' and not legally able to serve, says watchdog (Independent)
wo acting secretaries appointed by Donald Trump to lead his Department of Homeland Security are not legally able to serve in their current roles, a government watchdog has discovered. The Government Accountability Office reported that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf and deputy Ken Cuccinelli have assumed their positions through an "invalid order of succession" under the Vacancies Reform Act...
wo acting secretaries appointed by Donald Trump to lead his Department of Homeland Security are not legally able to serve in their current roles, a government watchdog has discovered. The Government Accountability Office reported that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf and deputy Ken Cuccinelli have assumed their positions through an "invalid order of succession" under the Vacancies Reform Act...
143John5918
The US election in November will be consequential for Africans (Al Jazeera)
Five years ago, during his first and only trip to Africa as US president, Barrack Obama decried the tendency by some African leaders to refuse to leave office when their terms ended. Speaking in front of an audience of heads of states and various officials at the Mandela Hall of the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, he said: "Now, let me be honest with you - I do not understand this. I love my work. But under our constitution, I cannot run again. I can't run again. I actually think I'm a pretty good president - I think if I ran I could win. But I can't."
The speech was welcomed by many on the continent, as it signalled that the US would stand with the people and constitutions rather than with rulers as it had been doing for nearly two decades. Today, that seems like a past age. The last four years have profoundly shaken faith in that promise.
Obama's successor, Donald Trump, appears not to hold constitutional safeguards in such high esteem. The last three months have been particularly eye-opening, with Americans denied the right to peaceful protest, brutalised by the police. The president has actively undermined the credibility of the US voting system, leading to speculation that he might refuse to leave office should he lose the election.../i
Five years ago, during his first and only trip to Africa as US president, Barrack Obama decried the tendency by some African leaders to refuse to leave office when their terms ended. Speaking in front of an audience of heads of states and various officials at the Mandela Hall of the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, he said: "Now, let me be honest with you - I do not understand this. I love my work. But under our constitution, I cannot run again. I can't run again. I actually think I'm a pretty good president - I think if I ran I could win. But I can't."
The speech was welcomed by many on the continent, as it signalled that the US would stand with the people and constitutions rather than with rulers as it had been doing for nearly two decades. Today, that seems like a past age. The last four years have profoundly shaken faith in that promise.
Obama's successor, Donald Trump, appears not to hold constitutional safeguards in such high esteem. The last three months have been particularly eye-opening, with Americans denied the right to peaceful protest, brutalised by the police. The president has actively undermined the credibility of the US voting system, leading to speculation that he might refuse to leave office should he lose the election.../i
144margd
Trump Says He’ll Seek a Third Term Because ‘They Spied On Me’
Just another manic Monday from the president of the United States
Peter Wade | Aug 17, 2020
...During a rally in Wisconsin, the president lied to a cheering crowd, telling them that he deserves eight additional years in office because, he falsely claimed, his campaign was spied on in 2016—an assertion his own FBI refuted in a detailed report.
“We are going to win four more years,” Trump said. “And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.”
...The 22nd Amendment says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-third-term-because-the...
Just another manic Monday from the president of the United States
Peter Wade | Aug 17, 2020
...During a rally in Wisconsin, the president lied to a cheering crowd, telling them that he deserves eight additional years in office because, he falsely claimed, his campaign was spied on in 2016—an assertion his own FBI refuted in a detailed report.
“We are going to win four more years,” Trump said. “And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.”
...The 22nd Amendment says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-third-term-because-the...
145John5918
Carter Centre to launch first-ever US election initiative, citing ‘erosion’ of democracy (Independent)
The democracy promotion organisation founded by former president Jimmy Carter is to launch its first United States election initiative this year, citing an “erosion” of democracy in the country.
The Carter Centre has monitored more than 110 elections in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia since 1989 as part of democracy promotion efforts around the world. Although there are no plans yet to monitor polls in the US, this will be the first time it has engaged in a US election.
“We are now at a point where we have taken an institutional decision to explore some direct engagement on US election issues. And this is a departure from our whole history trying not to do that”...
In the past, he added, the centre has prioritised countries where there is “a significant potential for an important change in the quality of democracy”, or where democracy is “under severe threat”. “Until the last 10 years, we wouldn’t have thought of the US in that category. But it’s been increasingly the view of the Carter Centre that the state of democracy in the US has been eroding”...
The democracy promotion organisation founded by former president Jimmy Carter is to launch its first United States election initiative this year, citing an “erosion” of democracy in the country.
The Carter Centre has monitored more than 110 elections in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia since 1989 as part of democracy promotion efforts around the world. Although there are no plans yet to monitor polls in the US, this will be the first time it has engaged in a US election.
“We are now at a point where we have taken an institutional decision to explore some direct engagement on US election issues. And this is a departure from our whole history trying not to do that”...
In the past, he added, the centre has prioritised countries where there is “a significant potential for an important change in the quality of democracy”, or where democracy is “under severe threat”. “Until the last 10 years, we wouldn’t have thought of the US in that category. But it’s been increasingly the view of the Carter Centre that the state of democracy in the US has been eroding”...
146John5918
Trump v American democracy: the real battle on the ballot this November (Guardian)
Whereas in 2016 Vladimir Putin’s Russia meddled in an election, now it is the current occupant of the White House who seems hellbent on subverting an American election...
Whereas in 2016 Vladimir Putin’s Russia meddled in an election, now it is the current occupant of the White House who seems hellbent on subverting an American election...
147margd
Diplomats aghast as Pompeo set to address GOP convention from Jerusalem
Mike Segar | Aug. 25, 2020
WASHINGTON — Diplomats who are barred by law from mixing work and politics say they're appalled by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's decision to address the Republican National Convention on Tuesday, breaking with long-standing traditions aimed at isolating American's foreign policy from partisan battles at home.
It would be problematic enough, current and former U.S. diplomats said, if Pompeo were simply showing up at the convention to speak. But Pompeo's decision to use a stop in Jerusalem during an official overseas trip as the site for his recorded speech to fellow Republicans raises even more troubling questions about the message it sends to other countries and whether U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill, they said.
"It's all just shredding the Hatch Act," a current U.S. diplomat said, referring to the federal law that prohibits government employees from political activity on the job or in their official capacities.
..."People are extraordinarily upset about it. This is really a bridge too far," said former Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who spent 35 years in the foreign service. "Pompeo is clearly ensuring the State Department is politicized by using his position to carry out what is basically a partisan mission."
Pompeo's speech in service of President Donald Trump's re-election appears to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of three legal memos issued by the State Department's legal adviser.
...One of the legal memos, intended to guide political appointees, says explicitly in bold letters that "Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees may not even attend a political party convention."...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/diplomats-aghast-pompeo-set-addre...
Mike Segar | Aug. 25, 2020
WASHINGTON — Diplomats who are barred by law from mixing work and politics say they're appalled by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's decision to address the Republican National Convention on Tuesday, breaking with long-standing traditions aimed at isolating American's foreign policy from partisan battles at home.
It would be problematic enough, current and former U.S. diplomats said, if Pompeo were simply showing up at the convention to speak. But Pompeo's decision to use a stop in Jerusalem during an official overseas trip as the site for his recorded speech to fellow Republicans raises even more troubling questions about the message it sends to other countries and whether U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill, they said.
"It's all just shredding the Hatch Act," a current U.S. diplomat said, referring to the federal law that prohibits government employees from political activity on the job or in their official capacities.
..."People are extraordinarily upset about it. This is really a bridge too far," said former Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who spent 35 years in the foreign service. "Pompeo is clearly ensuring the State Department is politicized by using his position to carry out what is basically a partisan mission."
Pompeo's speech in service of President Donald Trump's re-election appears to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of three legal memos issued by the State Department's legal adviser.
...One of the legal memos, intended to guide political appointees, says explicitly in bold letters that "Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees may not even attend a political party convention."...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/diplomats-aghast-pompeo-set-addre...
148John5918
Republicans shatter norms by using government roles during political convention (Guardian)
Allies of Donald Trump shattered political norms, stirred controversy and issued misleading claims against Democrats during the second night of the Republican party’s national convention on Tuesday...
Allies of Donald Trump shattered political norms, stirred controversy and issued misleading claims against Democrats during the second night of the Republican party’s national convention on Tuesday...
149margd
That he felt it needed to be said...
Top general says no role for military in presidential vote
LOLITA C. BALDOR | 8/28/2020
...The comments from Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, underscore the extraordinary political environment in America, where the president has declared without evidence that the expected surge in mail-in ballots will make the vote “inaccurate and fraudulent,” and has suggested he might not accept the election results if he loses.
Trump’s repeated complaints questioning the election’s validity have triggered unprecedented worries about the potential for chaos surrounding the election results. Some have speculated that the military might be called upon to get involved, either by Trump trying to use it to help his reelection prospects or as, Democratic challenger Joe Biden has suggested, to remove Trump from the White House if he refuses to accept defeat. The military has adamantly sought to tamp down that speculation and is zealously protective of its historically nonpartisan nature.
“I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Milley said in written responses to several questions posed by two Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S armed forces in this process.”
Milley’s tone reflects the longstanding views of military leaders who insist that the nation’s military stays out of politics and that troops are sworn to protect the country and uphold the Constitution.
But the two Congress members, Reps. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, said Friday that Trump’s recent comments and his efforts to use the military to quell protests have fueled their concerns. The two lawmakers released Milley’s answers.
...Milley, known to be a student of military and constitutional history, anchored many of his responses in the nation’s founding document. Asked if the military would refuse an order from the president if he was attempting to use military action for political gain rather than national security, Milley said, “I will not follow an unlawful order.”
...(Trump) raised alarms — and met resistance from the Pentagon — when he threatened to use the Insurrection Act to use troops for law enforcement during the protests after George Floyd’s death. Defense Secretary Mark Esper publicly said he opposed such a move —- a stand that enraged Trump and nearly cost Esper his job.
The questions were also sent to Esper, and the answers were due Thursday, but Slotkin said he has not yet responded. Slotkin is a former CIA analyst and senior Pentagon policy adviser and Sherrill served in the Navy for about 10 years.
This is the second time in recent months that Milley has made a public stand against military involvement in politics. In June he used a speech at the National Defense University to express regret for walking with Trump through Lafayette Square in what turned out to be a photo op during public protests after the death of George Floyd.
He said photos of him there “sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society.” And he told the military audience, ”we must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic.”
https://apnews.com/a979ad8beceacd77c692e42448cf7b82
Top general says no role for military in presidential vote
LOLITA C. BALDOR | 8/28/2020
...The comments from Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, underscore the extraordinary political environment in America, where the president has declared without evidence that the expected surge in mail-in ballots will make the vote “inaccurate and fraudulent,” and has suggested he might not accept the election results if he loses.
Trump’s repeated complaints questioning the election’s validity have triggered unprecedented worries about the potential for chaos surrounding the election results. Some have speculated that the military might be called upon to get involved, either by Trump trying to use it to help his reelection prospects or as, Democratic challenger Joe Biden has suggested, to remove Trump from the White House if he refuses to accept defeat. The military has adamantly sought to tamp down that speculation and is zealously protective of its historically nonpartisan nature.
“I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Milley said in written responses to several questions posed by two Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S armed forces in this process.”
Milley’s tone reflects the longstanding views of military leaders who insist that the nation’s military stays out of politics and that troops are sworn to protect the country and uphold the Constitution.
But the two Congress members, Reps. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, said Friday that Trump’s recent comments and his efforts to use the military to quell protests have fueled their concerns. The two lawmakers released Milley’s answers.
...Milley, known to be a student of military and constitutional history, anchored many of his responses in the nation’s founding document. Asked if the military would refuse an order from the president if he was attempting to use military action for political gain rather than national security, Milley said, “I will not follow an unlawful order.”
...(Trump) raised alarms — and met resistance from the Pentagon — when he threatened to use the Insurrection Act to use troops for law enforcement during the protests after George Floyd’s death. Defense Secretary Mark Esper publicly said he opposed such a move —- a stand that enraged Trump and nearly cost Esper his job.
The questions were also sent to Esper, and the answers were due Thursday, but Slotkin said he has not yet responded. Slotkin is a former CIA analyst and senior Pentagon policy adviser and Sherrill served in the Navy for about 10 years.
This is the second time in recent months that Milley has made a public stand against military involvement in politics. In June he used a speech at the National Defense University to express regret for walking with Trump through Lafayette Square in what turned out to be a photo op during public protests after the death of George Floyd.
He said photos of him there “sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society.” And he told the military audience, ”we must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic.”
https://apnews.com/a979ad8beceacd77c692e42448cf7b82
150John5918
>149 margd:
Same story from CNN: Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election
America's most senior general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, told members of Congress that the military will not play a role in November's election and won't help settle any disputes if the results are contested.
"The Constitution and laws of the US and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections ... I do not see the US military as part of this process... In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. Military"...
Good that he said it, sad that he felt he neeeded to.
Same story from CNN: Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election
America's most senior general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, told members of Congress that the military will not play a role in November's election and won't help settle any disputes if the results are contested.
"The Constitution and laws of the US and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections ... I do not see the US military as part of this process... In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. Military"...
Good that he said it, sad that he felt he neeeded to.
151John5918
The real threats to American law and order are Trump's craven enablers (Guardian)
The president railed against ‘violent anarchists, agitators and criminals’ but he surrounds himself with lawless lackeys...
The president railed against ‘violent anarchists, agitators and criminals’ but he surrounds himself with lawless lackeys...
152John5918
US imposes sanctions on top international criminal court officials (Guardian)
The US has imposed sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court, Fatou Bensouda, in the latest of a series of unilateral and radical foreign policy moves...
The US Treasury issued a statement saying Bensouda and Mochochoko had been deemed “specially designated nationals”, grouping them alongside terrorists and narcotics traffickers, blocking their assets and prohibited US citizens from having any dealings with them.
In June, Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials involved in investigating Americans, in response to the court’s decision to open an inquiry into war crimes committed by all sides in Afghanistan.
The US also opposes ICC scrutiny of potential Israeli crimes against Palestinians as part of an investigation that also looks at abuses carried out by Palestinian security forces.
The US was roundly condemned for its anti-ICC campaign, which was not supported by any other western democracy or US ally apart from Israel...
Appalling.
The US has imposed sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court, Fatou Bensouda, in the latest of a series of unilateral and radical foreign policy moves...
The US Treasury issued a statement saying Bensouda and Mochochoko had been deemed “specially designated nationals”, grouping them alongside terrorists and narcotics traffickers, blocking their assets and prohibited US citizens from having any dealings with them.
In June, Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials involved in investigating Americans, in response to the court’s decision to open an inquiry into war crimes committed by all sides in Afghanistan.
The US also opposes ICC scrutiny of potential Israeli crimes against Palestinians as part of an investigation that also looks at abuses carried out by Palestinian security forces.
The US was roundly condemned for its anti-ICC campaign, which was not supported by any other western democracy or US ally apart from Israel...
Appalling.
Este tema fue continuado por Constitution and Norms under Attack: Military, Judiciary, Administration, Congress, International 3.
