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
February 7, 2020
The Challenge Facing Democrats
February 7, 2020 at 12:55 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
The Challenge Facing Democrats
https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/07/the-challenge-facing-democrats/The Challenge Facing Democrats
February 7, 2020 at 12:55 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
John Cassidy: “The key point is that Trump is now sufficiently popular, and the economic environment is sufficiently benign, to make his reelection a real and live danger. (In the online betting markets, for what they are worth, he is already a strong favorite to win.) This year, again, the result will most likely come down to ten battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and, of course, the three Rust Belt states that Trump flipped in 2016: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. According to the data-research firm Morning Consult, Trump’s disapproval rating currently exceeds his approval rating in all of these states apart from Florida. But the gap has narrowed in a number of places, including Arizona, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.”
“The identity of the Democratic candidate will obviously be vitally important, but so will the manner in which the campaign is conducted. Everyone associated with the Democratic Party—from grassroots activists to elected officials and Party operatives—will need to unite behind the winner of the primary, whoever it is, and avoid scoring any own goals. During a hard-fought primary election, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the various candidates and their supporters to project this sort of unity and discipline.”
“The identity of the Democratic candidate will obviously be vitally important, but so will the manner in which the campaign is conducted. Everyone associated with the Democratic Party—from grassroots activists to elected officials and Party operatives—will need to unite behind the winner of the primary, whoever it is, and avoid scoring any own goals. During a hard-fought primary election, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the various candidates and their supporters to project this sort of unity and discipline.”
February 7, 2020
James Comey Responds to Trump
February 7, 2020 at 4:10 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
James Comey Responds to Trump
https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/07/james-comey-responds-to-trump/James Comey Responds to Trump
February 7, 2020 at 4:10 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
James Comey: “Yes, as usual, he called me a sleaze and scum and a dirty cop and said he likely would no longer be president if he hadn’t fired me. Although I still can’t follow the logic of that last bit, it doesn’t matter.”
“The important thing was what happened in the audience, where there were plenty of intelligent people of deep commitment to religious principle. They laughed and smiled and clapped as a president of the United States lied, bullied, cursed and belittled the faith of other leaders. That was the deeply disturbing part of the East Room moment, and should challenge us all.”
“The important thing was what happened in the audience, where there were plenty of intelligent people of deep commitment to religious principle. They laughed and smiled and clapped as a president of the United States lied, bullied, cursed and belittled the faith of other leaders. That was the deeply disturbing part of the East Room moment, and should challenge us all.”
February 7, 2020
Was Impeachment a Mistake?
Republican devotion to the Great Dictator held. Now Trump is gloating. Was impeachment always a fool’s errand?
by Robert Kuttner
February 4, 2020
snip//
I do think Democrats had to pursue impeachment. Trump’s contempt for the rule of law was so flagrant that it would have been a dereliction of constitutional duty for the House Democrats to turn the other cheek.
snip//
You might second-guess Pelosi on that delay tactic, which failed. But overall, given the available choices, the general course the Democrats followed was the best one on offer. No impeachment would have been worse; likewise a more complex impeachment extending well into the election year, based on a very slender majority that excluded some Democrats.
There is no evidence that the impeachment will hurt Democrats in November, and some evidence that it helped. During the entire investigation, polls scarcely moved. To the extent that public opinion shifted at all, it moved very slightly in the direction of favoring Trump’s removal from office, especially among independents.
As a sheer matter of politics, there is one strong benefit. Depending on whom you include, between seven and eleven Republican Senate incumbents are up for re-election in swing states next November.
Their vote to excuse Trump’s dictatorial behavior by refusing to convict will force them to answer extremely damaging questions during the campaign. These include Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine. McConnell himself, up for re-election, has approval ratings in his home state of Kentucky of just 37 percent.
Whether or not Trump is re-elected, Democratic control of the Senate is crucial for maintaining a semblance of democracy in America. So no, impeachment did not remove Trump, and may not even have damaged him. But it had to be done, and could yet produce major benefits for the Democrats and the country.
Was Impeachment a Mistake?
https://prospect.org/impeachment/was-impeachment-a-mistake/Was Impeachment a Mistake?
Republican devotion to the Great Dictator held. Now Trump is gloating. Was impeachment always a fool’s errand?
by Robert Kuttner
February 4, 2020
snip//
I do think Democrats had to pursue impeachment. Trump’s contempt for the rule of law was so flagrant that it would have been a dereliction of constitutional duty for the House Democrats to turn the other cheek.
snip//
You might second-guess Pelosi on that delay tactic, which failed. But overall, given the available choices, the general course the Democrats followed was the best one on offer. No impeachment would have been worse; likewise a more complex impeachment extending well into the election year, based on a very slender majority that excluded some Democrats.
There is no evidence that the impeachment will hurt Democrats in November, and some evidence that it helped. During the entire investigation, polls scarcely moved. To the extent that public opinion shifted at all, it moved very slightly in the direction of favoring Trump’s removal from office, especially among independents.
As a sheer matter of politics, there is one strong benefit. Depending on whom you include, between seven and eleven Republican Senate incumbents are up for re-election in swing states next November.
Their vote to excuse Trump’s dictatorial behavior by refusing to convict will force them to answer extremely damaging questions during the campaign. These include Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine. McConnell himself, up for re-election, has approval ratings in his home state of Kentucky of just 37 percent.
Whether or not Trump is re-elected, Democratic control of the Senate is crucial for maintaining a semblance of democracy in America. So no, impeachment did not remove Trump, and may not even have damaged him. But it had to be done, and could yet produce major benefits for the Democrats and the country.
February 7, 2020
Democratic senators and House members argued the president frequently violates the rule with his businesses, including a Washington, D.C., hotel that's popular with foreign government officials.
The constitutional clause at issue in the case reads, "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Trump told reporters on the White House lawn that the suit was "another phony case."
"It was a total win," he said.
Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations
JFC. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-emoluments-case-n1132441?fbclid=IwAR1Nkw6LDTvdtItc4R3pJL3u_h8fQapQWQ-wH07yYzrstCy-BbabYlfXB1c
Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations
The suit, which was dismissed on technical grounds, argued the president has violated the Constitution with his businesses, including a hotel popular with foreign officials.
Appeals court: Members of Congress lack legal standing for Trump emoluments suit
Feb. 7, 202001:47
Feb. 7, 2020, 10:51 AM EST
By Dareh Gregorian
A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers' lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution on technical grounds.
In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.
In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers on the lawsuit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed the suit as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling says.
"Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the members — 29 senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments," the decision says.
Democratic senators and House members argued the president frequently violates the rule with his businesses, including a Washington, D.C., hotel that's popular with foreign government officials.
The constitutional clause at issue in the case reads, "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Trump told reporters on the White House lawn that the suit was "another phony case."
"It was a total win," he said.
February 7, 2020
Democratic Senators Protest Trump’s Anti-Asylum Policies
Lawmakers’ letter warns deportation agreements with Central American countries may violate both international and domestic refugee law.
by Marcia Brown
February 7, 2020
snip//
On Thursday, more than 20 Democratic senators signed a letter to the administration arguing that these agreements are “inhumane and potentially illegal,” as the Prospect has already documented. Because these three countries have virtually nonexistent asylum systems, they run a high risk of failing to protect asylum seekers and “inadvertently or willfully” sending asylum seekers back to the countries they are fleeing, a process known as refoulement, the letter argues. This is a fundamental violation of refugee law.
snip//
In their letter, the senators note that Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are largely unable to provide protection for asylum seekers and that their governments have “weak or practically non-existent asylum capacities.” Indeed, there are no dedicated asylum offices in Guatemala, and the four officials assigned to the system did not resolve one case in the first seven months of 2019. Honduras and El Salvador do not have any full-time asylum officers.
On Wednesday, El Salvador even admitted it: Foreign Minister Alexandra Hill Tinoco said that El Salvador isn’t ready to offer the protections and safety asylum seekers need, and the country will refuse to accept asylum seekers until it can. As the senators put it, the notion that these countries can offer comparable asylum systems and protections “strains credulity.” At best, their systems are “deeply flawed and under-resourced, and at worst, practically non-existent.”
The glaring lack of capacity to provide for asylum seekers led the senators to question the agreements’ legality not only under international law, but also under domestic law, specifically under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits the return of asylum seekers to their country of persecution. The senators further note that the agreements may also constitute violations of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the U.S. is party. The senator added that the agreements “may also violate U.S. obligations as a party to the 1984 Convention against Torture.”
more...
https://prospect.org/justice/democratic-senators-protest-trumps-anti-asylum-policies/
Democratic Senators Protest Trump's Anti-Asylum Policies
Democratic Senators Protest Trump’s Anti-Asylum Policies
Lawmakers’ letter warns deportation agreements with Central American countries may violate both international and domestic refugee law.
by Marcia Brown
February 7, 2020
snip//
On Thursday, more than 20 Democratic senators signed a letter to the administration arguing that these agreements are “inhumane and potentially illegal,” as the Prospect has already documented. Because these three countries have virtually nonexistent asylum systems, they run a high risk of failing to protect asylum seekers and “inadvertently or willfully” sending asylum seekers back to the countries they are fleeing, a process known as refoulement, the letter argues. This is a fundamental violation of refugee law.
snip//
In their letter, the senators note that Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are largely unable to provide protection for asylum seekers and that their governments have “weak or practically non-existent asylum capacities.” Indeed, there are no dedicated asylum offices in Guatemala, and the four officials assigned to the system did not resolve one case in the first seven months of 2019. Honduras and El Salvador do not have any full-time asylum officers.
On Wednesday, El Salvador even admitted it: Foreign Minister Alexandra Hill Tinoco said that El Salvador isn’t ready to offer the protections and safety asylum seekers need, and the country will refuse to accept asylum seekers until it can. As the senators put it, the notion that these countries can offer comparable asylum systems and protections “strains credulity.” At best, their systems are “deeply flawed and under-resourced, and at worst, practically non-existent.”
The glaring lack of capacity to provide for asylum seekers led the senators to question the agreements’ legality not only under international law, but also under domestic law, specifically under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits the return of asylum seekers to their country of persecution. The senators further note that the agreements may also constitute violations of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the U.S. is party. The senator added that the agreements “may also violate U.S. obligations as a party to the 1984 Convention against Torture.”
Typical agreements require asylum seekers to have transited through the countries to which they are being deported, but Trump’s ACAs do not have transit requirements—a fact the administration obscured when they were first announced.
more...
https://prospect.org/justice/democratic-senators-protest-trumps-anti-asylum-policies/
February 7, 2020
Trump charging Secret Service premium rates at his hotels: $650 for rooms, $2,000 for golf carts
Mark Sumner
Daily Kos Staff
Friday February 07, 2020 · 11:04 AM EST
Trump is taking taxpayer dollars and pocketing them, deliberately, openly, and in larger quantities than most people even realize. Of all the crimes Donald Trump has committed while in office, the violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution may be the most obvious and consistent. It was clearly an issue before Trump ever stepped through the door of the White House. And ever since then, the failure to do a thing about it has been just as blatant.
Trump may not have built a wall that can stand up to a breeze, but he has built a reliable pipeline that funnels money from both foreign governments and the U.S. government straight into his bank accounts. And the latest numbers show that, far from being concerned about how fast the money may be flowing through that pipe, Trump has cranked the valve open wide—overcharging taxpayers and supercharging the flow into his own pocket.
That includes booking Secret Service agents into rooms at Trump’s own hotels, for the low, low price of $650 a night.
Since taking office, Trump has made an astounding 114 visits to his own golf resorts, racking up a $127,000,000 bill to taxpayers in the process. Each one of those visits requires that the Secret Service and other White House staff come along. But they don’t come along for free. Trump charges each of those he drags off to Doral or Mar-a-Lago as if they were visitors on a holiday—on a holiday at special opposite-of-discount rates.
By August of 2019, the Secret Service had given Donald Trump over half a million dollars for the privilege of driving golf carts around his courses. Check that again. Trump plays golf, then charges the Secret Service rental on the carts they drive while protecting him—a rate of $2,000 dollars a day.
But, as The Washington Post reports, that’s far from the only place where Trump is charging the country a premium rate to remain in his presence. Federal records show that Trump has been billing rooms for Secret Service agents at rates up to $650 per night. Trump has previously stated that he charges minimal fees … but the records don’t support those claims.
That $650 rate wasn’t just a one-off fee that landed on agents squeezing into Mar-a-Lago at some kind of peak season. That was the rate Trump charged dozens of times in 2017 alone, the Post said. But then, not every Secret Service agent had a plain old room. When visiting his Bedminster club, Trump rented the service a so-called cottage for the bargain rate of $17,000 a month. That includes billing for days when neither Trump nor the agents were present.
None of this squares with claims from Eric Trump that when Trump travels, agents “stay at our properties for free—meaning, like, cost for housekeeping.” But then, that was Eric.
To make things more fun, an appeals court ruled on Friday that individual Americans, even if they are members of Congress, have no standing to sue Trump for violating the emoluments clause. Which is just what this week needed: even more evidence that Trump is beyond the law.
Trump charging Secret Service premium rates at his hotels: $650 for rooms, $2,000 for golf carts
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/7/1917402/-Trump-charging-Secret-Service-premium-rates-at-his-hotels-650-for-rooms-2000-for-golf-carts#read-moreTrump charging Secret Service premium rates at his hotels: $650 for rooms, $2,000 for golf carts
Mark Sumner
Daily Kos Staff
Friday February 07, 2020 · 11:04 AM EST
Trump is taking taxpayer dollars and pocketing them, deliberately, openly, and in larger quantities than most people even realize. Of all the crimes Donald Trump has committed while in office, the violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution may be the most obvious and consistent. It was clearly an issue before Trump ever stepped through the door of the White House. And ever since then, the failure to do a thing about it has been just as blatant.
Trump may not have built a wall that can stand up to a breeze, but he has built a reliable pipeline that funnels money from both foreign governments and the U.S. government straight into his bank accounts. And the latest numbers show that, far from being concerned about how fast the money may be flowing through that pipe, Trump has cranked the valve open wide—overcharging taxpayers and supercharging the flow into his own pocket.
That includes booking Secret Service agents into rooms at Trump’s own hotels, for the low, low price of $650 a night.
Since taking office, Trump has made an astounding 114 visits to his own golf resorts, racking up a $127,000,000 bill to taxpayers in the process. Each one of those visits requires that the Secret Service and other White House staff come along. But they don’t come along for free. Trump charges each of those he drags off to Doral or Mar-a-Lago as if they were visitors on a holiday—on a holiday at special opposite-of-discount rates.
By August of 2019, the Secret Service had given Donald Trump over half a million dollars for the privilege of driving golf carts around his courses. Check that again. Trump plays golf, then charges the Secret Service rental on the carts they drive while protecting him—a rate of $2,000 dollars a day.
But, as The Washington Post reports, that’s far from the only place where Trump is charging the country a premium rate to remain in his presence. Federal records show that Trump has been billing rooms for Secret Service agents at rates up to $650 per night. Trump has previously stated that he charges minimal fees … but the records don’t support those claims.
That $650 rate wasn’t just a one-off fee that landed on agents squeezing into Mar-a-Lago at some kind of peak season. That was the rate Trump charged dozens of times in 2017 alone, the Post said. But then, not every Secret Service agent had a plain old room. When visiting his Bedminster club, Trump rented the service a so-called cottage for the bargain rate of $17,000 a month. That includes billing for days when neither Trump nor the agents were present.
None of this squares with claims from Eric Trump that when Trump travels, agents “stay at our properties for free—meaning, like, cost for housekeeping.” But then, that was Eric.
To make things more fun, an appeals court ruled on Friday that individual Americans, even if they are members of Congress, have no standing to sue Trump for violating the emoluments clause. Which is just what this week needed: even more evidence that Trump is beyond the law.
February 7, 2020
White House Eyes Plan to Purge NSC, Fire Alexander Vindman After Trump’s Acquittal: Report
REVENGE
Allison Quinn
Updated Feb. 07, 2020 6:45AM ET /
Published Feb. 07, 2020 12:02AM ET
White House Eyes Plan to Purge NSC, Fire Alexander Vindman After Trump's Acquittal: Report
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-eyes-plan-to-purge-nsc-fire-alexander-vindman-after-trumps-acquittal-report-says?ref=homeWhite House Eyes Plan to Purge NSC, Fire Alexander Vindman After Trump’s Acquittal: Report
REVENGE
Allison Quinn
Updated Feb. 07, 2020 6:45AM ET /
Published Feb. 07, 2020 12:02AM ET
Fresh off President Trump’s impeachment acquittal earlier this week, the White House is reportedly considering a purge of the National Security Council to remove some staff perceived as disloyal to the president—including Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Citing three sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News reports that senior officials were notified Thursday that some staffers would be departing the White House. Among those reportedly on the chopping block is Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, whose damning testimony about Trump’s “inappropriate” dealings with Ukraine in the impeachment trial sparked a smear campaign against him by Trump allies. According to a source cited by CNN, Vindman has told colleagues he believes he will be leaving the NSC in the next few weeks to go back to the Defense Department, though it was not immediately clear if the move was voluntary. Trump has reportedly expressed anger that Vindman remains on the NSC, and his responsibilities were diminished after his testimony, according to CNN. The White House is said to be keen to make Vindman’s departure look like just part of a wider move to downsize the NSC rather than payback for his impeachment testimony.
February 6, 2020
Miami-Dade Democrats file bar complaint against Matt Gaetz for alleged obstruction of impeachment process
The complaint alleges two instances where Gaetz violated House rules.
By Ryan Nicol
February 6, 2020
The Miami-Dade Democratic Party is filing a bar complaint against Rep. Matt Gaetz, alleging he violated House rules during President Donald Trump‘s impeachment inquiry by attempting to enter secure rooms.
Prior to Trump’s impeachment, the House assigned a group of committees to investigate his actions regarding Ukraine.
As part of the investigation, those committees interviewed witnesses. The interviews were open to those committees only, though Democrats and Republicans sat on each committee.
The complaint cites two instances where Gaetz attempted to enter those restricted interview hearings.
In one attempt, two dozen Republicans tried to enter a secure hearing room to interrupt the deposition of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper. Republicans protested what they called a “Soviet-style process” despite, again, several Republicans on the relevant committees being welcome to hear the testimony and ask questions.
CNN’s Manu Raju reported Gaetz led that stunt.
In a separate instance, Gaetz was kicked out of a closed-door interview with Fiona Hill, who served as a White House advisor on Russia.
Hill was testifying to the House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs committees. Gaetz doesn’t sit on any of those committees.
more...
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/318446-miami-dade-bar-complaint-gaetz-impeachment?fbclid=IwAR1llVdNshRgIXLntM1aMaLX1vdSKAiWC_w86_zc7WEUzJofm6e2A0DjACY
Miami-Dade Dems file bar complaint against Matt Gaetz for alleged obstruction of impeachment proces
Miami-Dade Democrats file bar complaint against Matt Gaetz for alleged obstruction of impeachment process
The complaint alleges two instances where Gaetz violated House rules.
By Ryan Nicol
February 6, 2020
The Miami-Dade Democratic Party is filing a bar complaint against Rep. Matt Gaetz, alleging he violated House rules during President Donald Trump‘s impeachment inquiry by attempting to enter secure rooms.
Prior to Trump’s impeachment, the House assigned a group of committees to investigate his actions regarding Ukraine.
As part of the investigation, those committees interviewed witnesses. The interviews were open to those committees only, though Democrats and Republicans sat on each committee.
The complaint cites two instances where Gaetz attempted to enter those restricted interview hearings.
In one attempt, two dozen Republicans tried to enter a secure hearing room to interrupt the deposition of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper. Republicans protested what they called a “Soviet-style process” despite, again, several Republicans on the relevant committees being welcome to hear the testimony and ask questions.
CNN’s Manu Raju reported Gaetz led that stunt.
In a separate instance, Gaetz was kicked out of a closed-door interview with Fiona Hill, who served as a White House advisor on Russia.
Hill was testifying to the House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs committees. Gaetz doesn’t sit on any of those committees.
“Both intrusions are improper, unprofessional and unethical and were meant only to feed Gaetz’s unjustifiably large ego and penchant for grandstanding,” the Bar complaint reads.
more...
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/318446-miami-dade-bar-complaint-gaetz-impeachment?fbclid=IwAR1llVdNshRgIXLntM1aMaLX1vdSKAiWC_w86_zc7WEUzJofm6e2A0DjACY
February 6, 2020
Utah state lawmaker files resolution to censure Romney over impeachment vote
By Kaelan Deese - 02/06/20 02:56 PM EST
A lawmaker from Utah is calling upon Republican colleagues to censure Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) after he voted to convict President Trump under the first article of impeachment.
State Rep. Phil Lyman announced on Thursday that he filed a resolution to censure the senator, claiming that Romney's judgment was "questionable even if his motives were pure," according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
Lyman also said that Romney's statements were harmful not only to the Republican Party, but to the country as well.
The text from Lyman's resolution has yet to be publicly released, according to the Tribune.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481877-republican-utah-state-lawmaker-files-resolution-to-censure-romney-over?fbclid=IwAR3PlAlkqyAyGH7dtfxILPnuqplHGA5WqKvW9mgEp0hRBomLSwVlDxQ-Bx8
Utah state lawmaker files resolution to censure Romney over impeachment vote
Utah state lawmaker files resolution to censure Romney over impeachment vote
By Kaelan Deese - 02/06/20 02:56 PM EST
A lawmaker from Utah is calling upon Republican colleagues to censure Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) after he voted to convict President Trump under the first article of impeachment.
State Rep. Phil Lyman announced on Thursday that he filed a resolution to censure the senator, claiming that Romney's judgment was "questionable even if his motives were pure," according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
"We're not censuring him for voting his conscience. We're censuring him for the positions that he's taken through this whole process," Lyman said. "And to send a message that we want to have good relationships with the White House, we want to have good relationships with President Trump."
Lyman also said that Romney's statements were harmful not only to the Republican Party, but to the country as well.
The text from Lyman's resolution has yet to be publicly released, according to the Tribune.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481877-republican-utah-state-lawmaker-files-resolution-to-censure-romney-over?fbclid=IwAR3PlAlkqyAyGH7dtfxILPnuqplHGA5WqKvW9mgEp0hRBomLSwVlDxQ-Bx8
February 6, 2020
Trump Is Blowing Up a National Monument in Arizona to Make Way for the Border Wall
Ryan Devereaux
February 6 2020, 2:24 p.m.
Contractors working for the Trump administration are blowing apart a mountain on protected lands in southern Arizona to make way for the president’s border wall. The blasting is happening on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a tract of Sonoran Desert wilderness long celebrated as one of the nation’s great ecological treasures, that holds profound spiritual significance to multiple Native American groups.
In a statement to The Intercept, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed that the blasting began this week and will continue through the end of the month. “The construction contractor has begun controlled blasting, in preparation for new border wall system construction, within the Roosevelt Reservation at Monument Mountain in the U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector,” the statement said, referring to an area also known as Monument Hill. “The controlled blasting is targeted and will continue intermittently for the rest of the month.”
The agency added that it “will continue to have an environmental monitor present during these activities as well as on-going clearing activities.”
Rep. Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat and chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, told The Intercept that he has zero faith that the Department of Homeland Security’s “environmental monitor will do anything to avoid, mitigate, or even point out some of the sacrilegious things that are occurring and will continue to occur, given the way they’re proceeding.”
more...
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/06/border-wall-construction-organ-pipe/?fbclid=IwAR09n4IJxku5pvJ94P8y17Tdr9bv6UEQLMLqSgQsL1f9jkZxs2oAZVg0qQA
Trump Is Blowing Up a National Monument in Arizona to Make Way for the Border Wall
Trump Is Blowing Up a National Monument in Arizona to Make Way for the Border Wall
Ryan Devereaux
February 6 2020, 2:24 p.m.
Contractors working for the Trump administration are blowing apart a mountain on protected lands in southern Arizona to make way for the president’s border wall. The blasting is happening on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a tract of Sonoran Desert wilderness long celebrated as one of the nation’s great ecological treasures, that holds profound spiritual significance to multiple Native American groups.
In a statement to The Intercept, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed that the blasting began this week and will continue through the end of the month. “The construction contractor has begun controlled blasting, in preparation for new border wall system construction, within the Roosevelt Reservation at Monument Mountain in the U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector,” the statement said, referring to an area also known as Monument Hill. “The controlled blasting is targeted and will continue intermittently for the rest of the month.”
The agency added that it “will continue to have an environmental monitor present during these activities as well as on-going clearing activities.”
Rep. Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat and chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, told The Intercept that he has zero faith that the Department of Homeland Security’s “environmental monitor will do anything to avoid, mitigate, or even point out some of the sacrilegious things that are occurring and will continue to occur, given the way they’re proceeding.”
more...
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/06/border-wall-construction-organ-pipe/?fbclid=IwAR09n4IJxku5pvJ94P8y17Tdr9bv6UEQLMLqSgQsL1f9jkZxs2oAZVg0qQA
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,105
