Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
May 29, 2019
Mueller Should Still Testify
And his statement Wednesday didn’t rule it out.
By Fred Kaplan
May 29, 2019
5:36 PM
He was subtle about it, but, in his terse but straightforward statement to the press on Wednesday morning, special counsel Robert Mueller clearly signaled that he was willing to testify before Congress.
Not that he wants to make any more public appearances. “I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner,” he said. However, a few seconds later, he added the following:
Notice: He did not say he wouldn’t testify. To the contrary, the sentence above—in which he says what he would or would not say “in any appearance before Congress”—assumes that he would appear before Congress, if asked or ordered to do so.
In other ways, which many have already noted, Mueller tossed the ball to Congress. For instance, he said that he was barred from indicting President Donald Trump because the Justice Department’s administrative rules—which Mueller is a stickler at following—prohibit indicting a sitting president. But Mueller wrote several times in his report—even if he didn’t say so explicitly on Wednesday—that Congress has many ways of going after a corrupt or obstructive president.
For instance: “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” And: “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence.” And: “We concluded that Congress can validly make obstruction-of-justice statutes applicable to corruptly motivated official acts of the President without impermissibly undermining his Article II functions.” And though he notes that impeachment is a “drastic” measure to take against such a president, “Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment”
Despite its bestseller status, few people managed to read the Mueller report—much less make it through to the end. So few people read it, in fact, that Mueller’s words on Wednesday—which came straight out of the report—struck many people as news. It helps to have the author read crucial portions of his report out loud. It would also help to have a panel of well-briefed senators asking the author to clarify certain passages that were written in legalistic prose. And it would be especially useful if these questions and answers were broadcast to an audience of millions of Americans, who might regard the clarifications as not just enlightening but shocking and enabling.
Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler: Take Mueller up on his offer—call him to testify now.
Mueller Should Still Testify-And his statement Wednesday didn't rule it out.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/mueller-congress-testimony-report.htmlMueller Should Still Testify
And his statement Wednesday didn’t rule it out.
By Fred Kaplan
May 29, 2019
5:36 PM
He was subtle about it, but, in his terse but straightforward statement to the press on Wednesday morning, special counsel Robert Mueller clearly signaled that he was willing to testify before Congress.
Not that he wants to make any more public appearances. “I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner,” he said. However, a few seconds later, he added the following:
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. … I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
Notice: He did not say he wouldn’t testify. To the contrary, the sentence above—in which he says what he would or would not say “in any appearance before Congress”—assumes that he would appear before Congress, if asked or ordered to do so.
In other ways, which many have already noted, Mueller tossed the ball to Congress. For instance, he said that he was barred from indicting President Donald Trump because the Justice Department’s administrative rules—which Mueller is a stickler at following—prohibit indicting a sitting president. But Mueller wrote several times in his report—even if he didn’t say so explicitly on Wednesday—that Congress has many ways of going after a corrupt or obstructive president.
For instance: “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” And: “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence.” And: “We concluded that Congress can validly make obstruction-of-justice statutes applicable to corruptly motivated official acts of the President without impermissibly undermining his Article II functions.” And though he notes that impeachment is a “drastic” measure to take against such a president, “Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment”
Despite its bestseller status, few people managed to read the Mueller report—much less make it through to the end. So few people read it, in fact, that Mueller’s words on Wednesday—which came straight out of the report—struck many people as news. It helps to have the author read crucial portions of his report out loud. It would also help to have a panel of well-briefed senators asking the author to clarify certain passages that were written in legalistic prose. And it would be especially useful if these questions and answers were broadcast to an audience of millions of Americans, who might regard the clarifications as not just enlightening but shocking and enabling.
Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler: Take Mueller up on his offer—call him to testify now.
May 29, 2019
De Niro pens open letter to Mueller: 'The country needs to hear your voice'
By Judy Kurtz - 05/29/19 05:51 PM EDT
snip//
If Mueller has nothing more to say about the investigation, De Niro suggested he could “just read from the report in response to questions from members of Congress.”
De Niro said he wants to see Mueller leave his “comfort zone,” writing, “You are the voice of the Mueller report. Let the country hear that voice.”
snip//
Trump, De Niro wrote, "has set up a world where it seems as if those disapproving of him can effectively challenge him only by becoming just like him."
De Niro pens open letter to Mueller: 'The country needs to hear your voice'
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/446061-de-niro-pens-letter-to-mueller-the-country-needs-to-hear-yourDe Niro pens open letter to Mueller: 'The country needs to hear your voice'
By Judy Kurtz - 05/29/19 05:51 PM EDT
snip//
“It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King),” the 75-year-old Academy Award winner responded in his open letter.
“But the country needs to hear your voice. Your actual voice. And not just because you don’t want them to think that your actual voice sounds like Robert De Niro reading from cue cards, but because this is the report your country asked you to do, and now you must give it authority and clarity without, if I may use the term, obstruction,” De Niro added.
“But the country needs to hear your voice. Your actual voice. And not just because you don’t want them to think that your actual voice sounds like Robert De Niro reading from cue cards, but because this is the report your country asked you to do, and now you must give it authority and clarity without, if I may use the term, obstruction,” De Niro added.
If Mueller has nothing more to say about the investigation, De Niro suggested he could “just read from the report in response to questions from members of Congress.”
De Niro said he wants to see Mueller leave his “comfort zone,” writing, “You are the voice of the Mueller report. Let the country hear that voice.”
snip//
Trump, De Niro wrote, "has set up a world where it seems as if those disapproving of him can effectively challenge him only by becoming just like him."
May 29, 2019
"Congress, your ball. Your duty."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1133762359170863104
May 29, 2019
Mueller Bows Out: What Does Congress Do Now?
By Benjamin Wittes
Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 1:18 PM
snip//
Mueller is not showing up. But he has given Congress a highly-detailed guide—one might even call it a “road map”—to whom it need to hear from and what questions they need to be asked.
Boiling all of this down, what emerges are a few simple guidepost principles for effective post-Mueller congressional oversight:
Proceeding in accordance with these principles would give coherence to congressional investigative efforts. It would avoid getting bogged down in the quicksand in which Trump has sought to mire these efforts. And it would help as well to establish answers to some legal questions about Congress’s oversight powers about which lack of clarity currently is empowering Trump’s abuses.
It’s a shame that Mueller is not showing up. But Congress can make do without him.
Benjamin Wittes: Mueller Bows Out: What Does Congress Do Now?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bows-out-what-does-congress-do-nowMueller Bows Out: What Does Congress Do Now?
By Benjamin Wittes
Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 1:18 PM
snip//
Mueller is not showing up. But he has given Congress a highly-detailed guide—one might even call it a “road map”—to whom it need to hear from and what questions they need to be asked.
Boiling all of this down, what emerges are a few simple guidepost principles for effective post-Mueller congressional oversight:
First, don’t focus on piercing the redactions in the report. Take the deal the Justice Department is offering and check out the almost-wholly-unredacted version on offer.
Second, focus instead on highlighting the presidential conduct described in the unredacted sections. Congress’s specific role right now is in holding live hearings which put flesh on the dry narrative bones of the Mueller report.
Third, focus litigation efforts—as the House is already doing—on obliterating the president’s claims that he gets to second-guess the legitimacy of Congress’s legislative purpose and then on establishing that there is no principle of testimonial immunity for White House aides.
Fourth, defer executive privilege litigation to the extent necessary by agreeing to limit questioning of White House aides to matters specifically covered by the Mueller report. Litigate later, if need be, over additional testimony from these witnesses.
Second, focus instead on highlighting the presidential conduct described in the unredacted sections. Congress’s specific role right now is in holding live hearings which put flesh on the dry narrative bones of the Mueller report.
Third, focus litigation efforts—as the House is already doing—on obliterating the president’s claims that he gets to second-guess the legitimacy of Congress’s legislative purpose and then on establishing that there is no principle of testimonial immunity for White House aides.
Fourth, defer executive privilege litigation to the extent necessary by agreeing to limit questioning of White House aides to matters specifically covered by the Mueller report. Litigate later, if need be, over additional testimony from these witnesses.
Proceeding in accordance with these principles would give coherence to congressional investigative efforts. It would avoid getting bogged down in the quicksand in which Trump has sought to mire these efforts. And it would help as well to establish answers to some legal questions about Congress’s oversight powers about which lack of clarity currently is empowering Trump’s abuses.
It’s a shame that Mueller is not showing up. But Congress can make do without him.
May 29, 2019
Robert Mueller Just Told Congress To Do Its Damn Job
Mueller came as close as possible to saying that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice, if Justice Department policy allowed him to do so.
By Joan Walsh
Today 12:32 pm
Independent Counsel Robert Mueller finally faced the cameras Wednesday morning. In his quiet way, Mueller’s message could not be any louder: He couldn’t indict the president, but he suggested Congress should investigate the many instances of likely obstruction of justice by President Trump outlined in his 445-page report – and that Congress has the power to find a president guilty of “wrongdoing.”
Mueller came as close as possible to saying that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice, if Justice Department policy allowed him to do so. “Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” he said. But then he delivered the most important information in his 10-minute statement: “If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
Respected intelligence analyst Marcy Wheeler tweeted immediately: “Shorter Mueller: That was an impeachment referral, damnit, now act on it.” 2020 presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren both used the same “impeachment referral” language. May all the 2020 Democrats join in, and soon.
snip//
It took me an hour to recognize this possibly interesting point: Mueller said: “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Not “If a subject.” Maybe that doesn’t matter. But…well, the word “if” was certainly available.
Mueller closed by making two very powerful points. For one, he thanked the lawyers and FBI agents who worked on his investigation, praising them for being “fair and independent” and for acting with “the highest integrity.” At a time when Attorney General William Barr – who Mueller took pains not to criticize – wants to investigate these investigators, Mueller made a strong stand on behalf of their professionalism and decency.
Second, Mueller chose to end his statement with the finding the president apparently will not accept: “There were multiple, systematic attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.” He clearly doesn’t believe American leaders are taking that seriously enough, and I agree with him.
This is a bad day for Donald Trump. But it’s also a tough day for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and any other Democratic leader who is trying to slow-walk an impeachment inquiry. In the long relay of justice, Robert Mueller just handed you the baton. Run with it. Today.
Joan Walsh: Robert Mueller Just Told Congress To Do Its Damn Job
https://www.thenation.com/article/robert-mueller-congress-impeachment/Robert Mueller Just Told Congress To Do Its Damn Job
Mueller came as close as possible to saying that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice, if Justice Department policy allowed him to do so.
By Joan Walsh
Today 12:32 pm
Independent Counsel Robert Mueller finally faced the cameras Wednesday morning. In his quiet way, Mueller’s message could not be any louder: He couldn’t indict the president, but he suggested Congress should investigate the many instances of likely obstruction of justice by President Trump outlined in his 445-page report – and that Congress has the power to find a president guilty of “wrongdoing.”
Mueller came as close as possible to saying that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice, if Justice Department policy allowed him to do so. “Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” he said. But then he delivered the most important information in his 10-minute statement: “If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
Respected intelligence analyst Marcy Wheeler tweeted immediately: “Shorter Mueller: That was an impeachment referral, damnit, now act on it.” 2020 presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren both used the same “impeachment referral” language. May all the 2020 Democrats join in, and soon.
snip//
It took me an hour to recognize this possibly interesting point: Mueller said: “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Not “If a subject.” Maybe that doesn’t matter. But…well, the word “if” was certainly available.
Mueller closed by making two very powerful points. For one, he thanked the lawyers and FBI agents who worked on his investigation, praising them for being “fair and independent” and for acting with “the highest integrity.” At a time when Attorney General William Barr – who Mueller took pains not to criticize – wants to investigate these investigators, Mueller made a strong stand on behalf of their professionalism and decency.
Second, Mueller chose to end his statement with the finding the president apparently will not accept: “There were multiple, systematic attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.” He clearly doesn’t believe American leaders are taking that seriously enough, and I agree with him.
This is a bad day for Donald Trump. But it’s also a tough day for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and any other Democratic leader who is trying to slow-walk an impeachment inquiry. In the long relay of justice, Robert Mueller just handed you the baton. Run with it. Today.
May 29, 2019
Scott Warren Provided Food & Water to Migrants in Arizona; He Now Faces Up to 20 Years in Prison
StoryMay 29, 2019
An Arizona humanitarian aid volunteer goes to trial today for providing water, food, clean clothes and beds to two undocumented migrants crossing the Sonoran Desert in southern Arizona. If convicted, Scott Warren could spend up to 20 years in prison. Warren, an activist with the Tucson-based No More Deaths, is charged with three felony counts of allegedly “harboring” undocumented immigrants. For years, No More Deaths and other humanitarian aid groups in southern Arizona have left water and food in the harsh Sonoran Desert, where the temperature often reaches three digits during summer, to help refugees and migrants survive the deadly journey across the U.S. border. Warren was arrested on January 17, 2018, just hours after No More Deaths released a report detailing how U.S. Border Patrol agents had intentionally destroyed more than 3,000 gallons of water left out for migrants crossing the border. The group also published a video showing border agents dumping out jugs of water in the desert. Hours after the report was published, authorities raided the Barn, a No More Deaths aid camp in Ajo, where they found two migrants who had sought temporary refuge. We speak with Scott Warren and his fellow No More Deaths volunteer and activist Catherine Gaffney in Tucson.
Interview follows...
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/29/scott_warren_provided_food_water_to?fbclid=IwAR3C8WVRV2pl3upB6rzpgnctir1FA09pnk3Vx8kC0gbU1s0qrpcNE9gfnAk
Scott Warren Provided Food & Water to Migrants in Arizona; He Now Faces Up to 20 Years in Prison
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/29/scott_warren_provided_food_water_to?fbclid=IwAR3C8WVRV2pl3upB6rzpgnctir1FA09pnk3Vx8kC0gbU1s0qrpcNE9gfnAkScott Warren Provided Food & Water to Migrants in Arizona; He Now Faces Up to 20 Years in Prison
StoryMay 29, 2019
An Arizona humanitarian aid volunteer goes to trial today for providing water, food, clean clothes and beds to two undocumented migrants crossing the Sonoran Desert in southern Arizona. If convicted, Scott Warren could spend up to 20 years in prison. Warren, an activist with the Tucson-based No More Deaths, is charged with three felony counts of allegedly “harboring” undocumented immigrants. For years, No More Deaths and other humanitarian aid groups in southern Arizona have left water and food in the harsh Sonoran Desert, where the temperature often reaches three digits during summer, to help refugees and migrants survive the deadly journey across the U.S. border. Warren was arrested on January 17, 2018, just hours after No More Deaths released a report detailing how U.S. Border Patrol agents had intentionally destroyed more than 3,000 gallons of water left out for migrants crossing the border. The group also published a video showing border agents dumping out jugs of water in the desert. Hours after the report was published, authorities raided the Barn, a No More Deaths aid camp in Ajo, where they found two migrants who had sought temporary refuge. We speak with Scott Warren and his fellow No More Deaths volunteer and activist Catherine Gaffney in Tucson.
Interview follows...
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/29/scott_warren_provided_food_water_to?fbclid=IwAR3C8WVRV2pl3upB6rzpgnctir1FA09pnk3Vx8kC0gbU1s0qrpcNE9gfnAk
May 29, 2019
Shorter Mueller: Just Impeach This Guy Already
In a rare public appearance, Robert Mueller made it clear that the only reason he didn’t charge Trump with a crime is because the DOJ wouldn’t let him.
by Bess Levin
May 29, 2019 11:56 am
When William Barr released his four-page summary of the special counsel’s report, he took it upon himself to clear Donald Trump of obstructing justice, despite the fact that Robert Mueller himself had done no such thing. In fact, Mueller found numerous instances of obstruction that, were his hands not tied by Justice Department guidelines that say you can’t indict the president, could have resulted in Trump being charged with a crime. Barr has repeatedly attempted to obfuscate that essential point in his defense of the president. So on Wednesday, Mueller himself went on the record, speaking publicly for the first time since being appointed as special counsel, to make things crystal clear for everyone who didn’t actually read the report.
Addressing reporters, Mueller effectively objected to the Attorney General’s description of his findings, specifically Barr’s characterization of the report as exonerating Trump on obstruction. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller said Wednesday. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” In other words, it’s very possible Trump committed a crime. Mueller went on to note that it was the Justice Department’s legal guidance, which prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, that prevented him from accusing Trump as such. He went on to shame the president, though not by name, noting that “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.”
Perhaps most important, Mueller suggested that if Trump is to be held to account, it must be Congress that takes up the case. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” he said. In other words: Congress, do your job and impeach.
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1133752518176120832
Mueller’s presser will presumably further strain his relationship with Barr, with whom he was apparently the best of friends before this whole Russia business blew up. Last month, while defending his handling of the report, Barr called a letter Mueller sent him “snitty,” adding, “I said, ‘Bob, what’s with the letter, you know? Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue.’” The Attorney General reportedly knew what Mueller’s presser would entail, and will presumably respond, in his characteristically smarmy fashion, in short order.
Meanwhile, at the White House, our nations’s foremost legal scholar has weighed in:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1133759237136494592
Shorter Mueller: Just Impeach This Guy Already
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/robert-mueller-statement?utm_brand=vf&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&mbid=social_facebook&fbclid=IwAR0h5Kg9XcSHonfgJ8TGc-1u5X8KAo-Uum0QdlbXBV7GOfieah20eEFQqnsShorter Mueller: Just Impeach This Guy Already
In a rare public appearance, Robert Mueller made it clear that the only reason he didn’t charge Trump with a crime is because the DOJ wouldn’t let him.
by Bess Levin
May 29, 2019 11:56 am
When William Barr released his four-page summary of the special counsel’s report, he took it upon himself to clear Donald Trump of obstructing justice, despite the fact that Robert Mueller himself had done no such thing. In fact, Mueller found numerous instances of obstruction that, were his hands not tied by Justice Department guidelines that say you can’t indict the president, could have resulted in Trump being charged with a crime. Barr has repeatedly attempted to obfuscate that essential point in his defense of the president. So on Wednesday, Mueller himself went on the record, speaking publicly for the first time since being appointed as special counsel, to make things crystal clear for everyone who didn’t actually read the report.
Addressing reporters, Mueller effectively objected to the Attorney General’s description of his findings, specifically Barr’s characterization of the report as exonerating Trump on obstruction. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller said Wednesday. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” In other words, it’s very possible Trump committed a crime. Mueller went on to note that it was the Justice Department’s legal guidance, which prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, that prevented him from accusing Trump as such. He went on to shame the president, though not by name, noting that “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.”
Perhaps most important, Mueller suggested that if Trump is to be held to account, it must be Congress that takes up the case. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” he said. In other words: Congress, do your job and impeach.
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1133752518176120832
Mueller’s presser will presumably further strain his relationship with Barr, with whom he was apparently the best of friends before this whole Russia business blew up. Last month, while defending his handling of the report, Barr called a letter Mueller sent him “snitty,” adding, “I said, ‘Bob, what’s with the letter, you know? Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue.’” The Attorney General reportedly knew what Mueller’s presser would entail, and will presumably respond, in his characteristically smarmy fashion, in short order.
Meanwhile, at the White House, our nations’s foremost legal scholar has weighed in:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1133759237136494592
May 29, 2019
Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks out with eye towards future of Roe v. Wade
By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer
Updated 4:05 AM ET, Wed May 29, 2019
Washington (CNN)The 86-year-old Supreme Court justice who this year became a three-time cancer survivor will be heard.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned on Tuesday about a threat to abortion rights and demonstrated that she is not going quietly on any abortion-related compromise. Ginsburg, in fact, has shown in recent weeks that she is not going quietly on much.
In addition to her partial dissent in the Indiana abortion dispute, Ginsburg on Tuesday wrote separately -- again, alone -- to protest a majority decision that she asserted uses a "thin case to state a rule that will leave press members and others exercising First Amendment rights with little protection against police suppression of their speech."
Just a few weeks earlier, Ginsburg signed on with fellow liberals to a dissenting opinion in an arbitration case but then separately took up her pen "to emphasize once again how treacherously the Court has strayed from the principle that 'arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.'"
As the nine justices now enter the final weeks of their annual term with the newly solidified 5-4 conservative majority, Ginsburg appears ready to take her shots, even if it means breaking with fellow liberals and writing alone.
In the abortion case, as she traded taunts with conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, she also revealed impatience for his many references to the "mother" who would choose to end a pregnancy.
Wrote Ginsburg, a prominent woman's rights lawyer before becoming a judge, "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'"
more...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-abortion/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-05-29T09%3A30%3A09&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_term=link&fbclid=IwAR1OUemcDzUyX8BvRnCYc9EpovLubippiYqeTImCipEdF7Silu8zfzdSIMk
Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks out with eye towards future of Roe v. Wade
Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks out with eye towards future of Roe v. Wade
By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer
Updated 4:05 AM ET, Wed May 29, 2019
Washington (CNN)The 86-year-old Supreme Court justice who this year became a three-time cancer survivor will be heard.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned on Tuesday about a threat to abortion rights and demonstrated that she is not going quietly on any abortion-related compromise. Ginsburg, in fact, has shown in recent weeks that she is not going quietly on much.
In addition to her partial dissent in the Indiana abortion dispute, Ginsburg on Tuesday wrote separately -- again, alone -- to protest a majority decision that she asserted uses a "thin case to state a rule that will leave press members and others exercising First Amendment rights with little protection against police suppression of their speech."
Just a few weeks earlier, Ginsburg signed on with fellow liberals to a dissenting opinion in an arbitration case but then separately took up her pen "to emphasize once again how treacherously the Court has strayed from the principle that 'arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.'"
As the nine justices now enter the final weeks of their annual term with the newly solidified 5-4 conservative majority, Ginsburg appears ready to take her shots, even if it means breaking with fellow liberals and writing alone.
In the abortion case, as she traded taunts with conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, she also revealed impatience for his many references to the "mother" who would choose to end a pregnancy.
Wrote Ginsburg, a prominent woman's rights lawyer before becoming a judge, "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'"
more...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-abortion/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-05-29T09%3A30%3A09&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_term=link&fbclid=IwAR1OUemcDzUyX8BvRnCYc9EpovLubippiYqeTImCipEdF7Silu8zfzdSIMk
May 29, 2019
Comey Goes Off on Trump’s ‘Treason’ Claims in New Op-Ed: ‘The President is a Liar’
Josh Feldman
2 hrs ago
Video by MSNBC
Former FBI Director James Comey penned another op-ed today blasting President Donald Trump, this time going off on his “dumb lies” about the Russia probe.
He says he can’t just ignore Trump “when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions.”
Comey defends the FBI’s actions in conducting the investigation and even mockingly comments “Worst deep-state conspiracy ever”:
Comey ends by expressing confidence that the investigations will show “the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations” and that there’s a reason “non-fringe media” isn’t spending time on “dumb lies.”
Comey Goes Off on Trump's 'Treason' Claims in New Op-Ed: 'The President is a Liar'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-goes-off-on-trumps-treason-claims-in-new-op-ed-the-president-is-a-liar/ar-AAC2XUV?ocid=sfComey Goes Off on Trump’s ‘Treason’ Claims in New Op-Ed: ‘The President is a Liar’
Josh Feldman
2 hrs ago
Video by MSNBC
Former FBI Director James Comey penned another op-ed today blasting President Donald Trump, this time going off on his “dumb lies” about the Russia probe.
He says he can’t just ignore Trump “when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions.”
“We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign, and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts,” he writes.
Comey defends the FBI’s actions in conducting the investigation and even mockingly comments “Worst deep-state conspiracy ever”:
If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.
We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help.
We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help.
Comey ends by expressing confidence that the investigations will show “the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations” and that there’s a reason “non-fringe media” isn’t spending time on “dumb lies.”
May 29, 2019
Trump administration separates newborns from some migrant mothers in detention
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday May 28, 2019 · 2:35 PM EDT
Pregnant migrants in U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) custody at the Texas border have had their newborns taken from them and put into foster care, Rewire.News investigative reporter Tina Vasquez has found. The newborns, who qualify as U.S. citizens since they were born in the U.S., have been handed over to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).
The mothers can't be reunited with their infants until they are released from federal custody and have to be able to access legal help. Reporters "learned that women who find their way to advocacy organizations appear to be reuniting with their newborns, but Rewire.News was unable to verify what happens to the children of women who do not have access to legal help."
One OB-GYN who delivers babies of migrants talked to Vasquez using the pseudonym Dr. Shelly. "I don't know if they lose their babies for good," she said. "But I do know the process is torturous for them." She said one woman "cried for 72 hours straight" and was held in the hospital for five days for psychological treatment. "I was worried she was going to hurt herself when they took her back to the detention center," the doctor said. "Luckily in her case, they were eventually able to locate an aunt-in-law, her uncle's wife, who lived in Chicago. But this wasn't a blood relative, and it wasn't someone she'd ever met before." She recounted that a colleague "dashed back and forth between the waiting room and the patient’s room, taking photos of the aunt-in-law and the patient so they would have some idea of what each other looked like," because the migrant was in custody and wasn't allowed visitors.
Hospital workers went to great lengths, Dr. Shelly said, to try to help this woman in the event she was deported without her child. "When the nurses still thought the baby was going into foster care, they tried to help [the patient] memorize the name of the hospital," she said. "They were saying, 'We have your fingerprints, we have your baby's footprints. You have a legal right to your baby.' In case she got deported without her baby, the nurses wanted her to know the hospital where she gave birth and understand that we had the records to prove this was her baby."
The USMS coldly responded to Rewire.News with the comments, "Child placement and care is the responsibility of the prisoner" and "Under no circumstances may the newborn child be returned to the detention facility with the prisoner, except in accordance with the detention facility’s visiting policy, if any." If the mother doesn't have family in the U.S., the baby is seized and put into foster care. "It is the responsibility of the prisoner to notify the court, the [USMS], the hospital, and the attending physician, in writing, of her placement decision as well as the financial responsibility arrangements she has made for her child's care," the USMS said.
The state is denying that this happens. "The process or scenario you describe does not exist," Patrick Crimmins, Texas DFPS’ media relations manager, told Vasquez, continuing, "Migrants do not place newborns with DFPS. Children are only removed into the conservatorship of the State of Texas following an investigation into abuse or neglect, and a confirmed finding of abuse or neglect. Any removal also has to be approved by a judge." That directly conflicts with what the medical professionals and advocates for migrants see happening. Taylor Levy, legal coordinator of the El Paso non-profit Annunciation House, says she has seen "multiple cases" of this happening. "Migrants in criminal custody who have babies who are U.S. citizens are placed with DFPS if the mother is taken back to criminal custody, and the mother has no one with lawful status to agree to take in the baby."
more...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/28/1860921/-Trump-administration-separates-newborns-from-some-migrant-mothers-in-detention
Trump administration separates newborns from some migrant mothers in detention
Trump administration separates newborns from some migrant mothers in detention
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday May 28, 2019 · 2:35 PM EDT
Pregnant migrants in U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) custody at the Texas border have had their newborns taken from them and put into foster care, Rewire.News investigative reporter Tina Vasquez has found. The newborns, who qualify as U.S. citizens since they were born in the U.S., have been handed over to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).
The mothers can't be reunited with their infants until they are released from federal custody and have to be able to access legal help. Reporters "learned that women who find their way to advocacy organizations appear to be reuniting with their newborns, but Rewire.News was unable to verify what happens to the children of women who do not have access to legal help."
One OB-GYN who delivers babies of migrants talked to Vasquez using the pseudonym Dr. Shelly. "I don't know if they lose their babies for good," she said. "But I do know the process is torturous for them." She said one woman "cried for 72 hours straight" and was held in the hospital for five days for psychological treatment. "I was worried she was going to hurt herself when they took her back to the detention center," the doctor said. "Luckily in her case, they were eventually able to locate an aunt-in-law, her uncle's wife, who lived in Chicago. But this wasn't a blood relative, and it wasn't someone she'd ever met before." She recounted that a colleague "dashed back and forth between the waiting room and the patient’s room, taking photos of the aunt-in-law and the patient so they would have some idea of what each other looked like," because the migrant was in custody and wasn't allowed visitors.
Hospital workers went to great lengths, Dr. Shelly said, to try to help this woman in the event she was deported without her child. "When the nurses still thought the baby was going into foster care, they tried to help [the patient] memorize the name of the hospital," she said. "They were saying, 'We have your fingerprints, we have your baby's footprints. You have a legal right to your baby.' In case she got deported without her baby, the nurses wanted her to know the hospital where she gave birth and understand that we had the records to prove this was her baby."
The USMS coldly responded to Rewire.News with the comments, "Child placement and care is the responsibility of the prisoner" and "Under no circumstances may the newborn child be returned to the detention facility with the prisoner, except in accordance with the detention facility’s visiting policy, if any." If the mother doesn't have family in the U.S., the baby is seized and put into foster care. "It is the responsibility of the prisoner to notify the court, the [USMS], the hospital, and the attending physician, in writing, of her placement decision as well as the financial responsibility arrangements she has made for her child's care," the USMS said.
The state is denying that this happens. "The process or scenario you describe does not exist," Patrick Crimmins, Texas DFPS’ media relations manager, told Vasquez, continuing, "Migrants do not place newborns with DFPS. Children are only removed into the conservatorship of the State of Texas following an investigation into abuse or neglect, and a confirmed finding of abuse or neglect. Any removal also has to be approved by a judge." That directly conflicts with what the medical professionals and advocates for migrants see happening. Taylor Levy, legal coordinator of the El Paso non-profit Annunciation House, says she has seen "multiple cases" of this happening. "Migrants in criminal custody who have babies who are U.S. citizens are placed with DFPS if the mother is taken back to criminal custody, and the mother has no one with lawful status to agree to take in the baby."
more...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/28/1860921/-Trump-administration-separates-newborns-from-some-migrant-mothers-in-detention
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,065
