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
January 21, 2020
Read the resolution @ link~
https://www.axios.com/read-mcconnell-senate-impeachment-trial-terms-38fbed27-4a80-45ed-a99a-4cc9c6e49fa2.html
READ: McConnell lays out terms for Senate impeachment trial
Stories
Alayna Treene19 mins ago
READ: McConnell lays out terms for Senate impeachment trial
The office of Senate Majority Mitch McConnell released Monday the organizing resolution laying out the terms for the impeachment trial.
The big picture: The resolution loosely models that of former President Bill Clinton's 1999 trial.
It will begin with opening arguments from House Democratic managers and President Trump's defense team.
Senators will then have an opportunity to submit their questions to Chief Justice John Roberts.
After the Q&A period, the Senate will vote on whether to consider and debate witness subpoenas.
If the Senate votes no, no one will be permitted to call for new witnesses or documents, according to a Republican leadership aide.
If the Senate votes yes, both sides will have an opportunity to motion to subpoena witnesses, then senators will debate and vote on them.
Then the Senate will vote on whether to convict the president and remove him from office.
Senators will then have an opportunity to submit their questions to Chief Justice John Roberts.
After the Q&A period, the Senate will vote on whether to consider and debate witness subpoenas.
If the Senate votes no, no one will be permitted to call for new witnesses or documents, according to a Republican leadership aide.
If the Senate votes yes, both sides will have an opportunity to motion to subpoena witnesses, then senators will debate and vote on them.
Then the Senate will vote on whether to convict the president and remove him from office.
Read the resolution @ link~
https://www.axios.com/read-mcconnell-senate-impeachment-trial-terms-38fbed27-4a80-45ed-a99a-4cc9c6e49fa2.html
January 21, 2020
As deficits soar, Trump asks, ‘Who the hell cares about the budget?’
01/20/20 10:30 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump delivered remarks at a private dinner with wealthy donors Friday night at Mar-a-Lago, and as the Washington Post reported, the president shared some thoughts about the nation’s finances.
The Republican’s comments came just four days after the Trump administration reported that the annual budget deficit surpassed $1 trillion in 2019, despite the growing economy, and despite the fact that Trump promised voters he’d produce the opposite results.
Trump has now added $2.6 trillion to the national debt in just three years – more than Obama added to the debt in his entire second term.
It’s against this backdrop that the current president has chosen … indifference. And though I’m generally loath to agree with Trump, his blunt rhetorical question – “Who the hell cares about the budget?” – may have some merit.
more...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficits-soar-trump-asks-who-the-hell-cares-about-the-budget?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR1s61L_m9n3Rt8VzRguSPvK9m4dCnr9zL17-TsipZ85cdP8ok6B0mk84Jo
As deficits soar, Trump asks, 'Who the hell cares about the budget?'
As deficits soar, Trump asks, ‘Who the hell cares about the budget?’
01/20/20 10:30 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump delivered remarks at a private dinner with wealthy donors Friday night at Mar-a-Lago, and as the Washington Post reported, the president shared some thoughts about the nation’s finances.
To those who criticized his spending and the growing national debt, Trump said: “Who the hell cares about the budget? We’re going to have a country.”
For most of President Barack Obama’s time in office, Republicans seemed to care very much about the budget, making fears around the national debt and deficit their top talking point. They’ve backed off those concerns under Trump.
For most of President Barack Obama’s time in office, Republicans seemed to care very much about the budget, making fears around the national debt and deficit their top talking point. They’ve backed off those concerns under Trump.
The Republican’s comments came just four days after the Trump administration reported that the annual budget deficit surpassed $1 trillion in 2019, despite the growing economy, and despite the fact that Trump promised voters he’d produce the opposite results.
Trump has now added $2.6 trillion to the national debt in just three years – more than Obama added to the debt in his entire second term.
It’s against this backdrop that the current president has chosen … indifference. And though I’m generally loath to agree with Trump, his blunt rhetorical question – “Who the hell cares about the budget?” – may have some merit.
more...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficits-soar-trump-asks-who-the-hell-cares-about-the-budget?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR1s61L_m9n3Rt8VzRguSPvK9m4dCnr9zL17-TsipZ85cdP8ok6B0mk84Jo
January 20, 2020
Jon Stewart joins fight to help veterans exposed to toxic chemicals from burn pits
Jeff Schogol
January 20, 2020 at 11:43 AM
Comedian Jon Stewart has joined forces with veterans groups to make sure service members who have been sickened by toxins from burn pits get the medical care they need, according to the Military Officers Association of America.
Stewart traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with MOAA and other veterans groups that make up the Toxic Exposures in the American Military coalition, a MOAA news release says.
Once widely used on U.S. bases, burn pits are believed to have contributed to cancer, skin diseases, and respiratory illnesses among veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As of Jan. 6, a total of 192,000 veterans and service members have reported health problems that they believe are related to their deployments by taking part in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.
more...
https://taskandpurpose.com/jon-stewart-burn-pits?utm_content=bufferc3f23&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR2ZxYvlYjYKFymAio_ZPrigY3sxIELVg5dcpBswO_ePAVZFJ6YxiqaybBE
Jon Stewart joins fight to help veterans exposed to toxic chemicals from burn pits
Jon Stewart joins fight to help veterans exposed to toxic chemicals from burn pits
Jeff Schogol
January 20, 2020 at 11:43 AM
Comedian Jon Stewart has joined forces with veterans groups to make sure service members who have been sickened by toxins from burn pits get the medical care they need, according to the Military Officers Association of America.
"Quite frankly, this is not just about burn pits — it's about the way we go to war as a country," Stewart said during his Jan. 17 visit to Washington, D.C. "We always have money to make war. We need to always have money to take care of what happens to people who are selfless enough, patriotic enough, to wage those wars on our behalf."
Stewart traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with MOAA and other veterans groups that make up the Toxic Exposures in the American Military coalition, a MOAA news release says.
Once widely used on U.S. bases, burn pits are believed to have contributed to cancer, skin diseases, and respiratory illnesses among veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As of Jan. 6, a total of 192,000 veterans and service members have reported health problems that they believe are related to their deployments by taking part in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.
"We want to make sure we do this smart," Stewart said on Jan. 17. "We're not going to get a lot of shots with this. "After all that you've given, the last thing you should be doing is fighting the very country that you gave so much to. It makes no sense."
more...
https://taskandpurpose.com/jon-stewart-burn-pits?utm_content=bufferc3f23&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR2ZxYvlYjYKFymAio_ZPrigY3sxIELVg5dcpBswO_ePAVZFJ6YxiqaybBE
January 20, 2020
Warner said he is encouraged by the interest young people have in registering to vote. He hopes this awareness results in participation in the 2020 election cycle.
Schools interested in the Jennings Randolph Award or Honorary Secretary of State program should visit our website.
24 West Virginia high schools have registered 100 percent of their eligible senior class to vote
More of this!! 
https://woay.tv/24-west-virginia-high-schools-have-registered-100-percent-of-their-eligible-senior-class-to-vote/?fbclid=IwAR1Dmz8k-aocUBr4fe204oRWOc_WFKcGQtCaXPmENlfeFhwKJvOhmaUZ6T0
WOAY – TV
24 West Virginia high schools have registered 100 percent of their eligible senior class to vote
By Tyler Barker -
January 14, 2020
CHARLESTON, WV (WOAY) – Secretary of State Mac Warner is pleased to announce that 24 West Virginia high schools have registered 100 percent of their eligible senior class to vote, which qualifies them for the first round of the Jennings Randolph Award for the 2019-2020 school year. View the full list by county.
Now in its 26th year, the Jennings Randolph Award program is an effort by the Secretary of State’s office to encourage students to discuss the importance of civic engagement and to register to vote. It is named for the late U.S. Senator Jennings Randolph, a West Virginia native, who sponsored the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reduced the voting age from 21 to 18. Those high schools which register at least 85 percent of their eligible students are honored with the Award for their efforts.
The Jennings Randolph Award “Gold Level” is given to West Virginia high schools that register 100 percent of eligible students. Schools which have registered at least 85 percent and qualified for the Silver Level have until May 1 to earn the Gold.
As part of the Jennings Randolph Award program, schools which qualify are also eligible to nominate up to two members of the student body for Honorary Secretary of State recognition. Students who receive this honor are invited to attend a day at the legislature. The Honorary Secretary of State list will be released later during session.
“Over the last three years, we have worked with county clerks and student leaders throughout the state to register more than 43,000 high school seniors to vote,” Warner said. “That’s an incredible number for a state the size of West Virginia.”
Warner said he is encouraged by the interest young people have in registering to vote. He hopes this awareness results in participation in the 2020 election cycle.
Schools interested in the Jennings Randolph Award or Honorary Secretary of State program should visit our website.
January 20, 2020
Trump’s Impeachment Brief Is a Howl of Rage
The document released by the president’s lawyers reads more like the scream of a wounded animal than a traditional legal filing.
11:55 AM ET
Quinta Jurecic
Contributing writer at The Atlantic and managing editor of Lawfare
Benjamin Wittes
Contributing writer at The Atlantic and editor in chief of Lawfare
Over the weekend, as the Senate prepared for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the newly appointed House impeachment managers and the president’s newly appointed legal team both filed their initial legal briefs.
At least, one of them was a legal brief. The other read more like the scream of a wounded animal.
snip//
By contrast, the White House’s “Answer of President Donald J. Trump” to the articles of impeachment, filed by the president’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, does not read like a traditional legal argument at all. It begins with a series of rhetorical flourishes—all of them, to one degree or another, false. The articles of impeachment are “a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President,” the president’s lawyers write—as though the impeachment power were not a constitutional reality every bit as enshrined in the founding document as the quadrennial election of the president. The articles are “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election,” and are “constitutionally invalid on their face,” they write, as though the president’s right to extort foreign leaders for political services were so beyond reasonable question, it is outrageous that anyone might object to it.
This document reads like one of the president’s speeches at his campaign rallies. The language is a little more lawyerly, if only a little. In Sekulow and Cipollone’s hands, Trump’s cries of “Witch hunt!” have turned into “lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.” His allegations that Democrats are a “disgrace” have turned into “an affront to the Constitution.” And Trump’s insistence that there’s a plot to destroy his presidency has become a “highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president [that] began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.”
But the message is unchanged. It’s not a legal argument. It’s a howl of rage.
snip//
But the flip side of Trump’s insistence on his own preeminence is his grasping need for other people to reaffirm him. And so the president’s defense, the argument and the team alike, has another purpose: It’s a message to Republican senators. It says to each of them that no, the White House will not make a factual argument on the merits of the case—not a real one, anyway. And no, it will not make a real legal argument either. It, rather, will announce that, per George Orwell, two plus two equals five. And it will demand of the senators that they get in line to endorse that proposition, preferably on television, where the president can see. It will be a failure of loyalty if they are not willing to do this. And they will be subject to retaliation.
It’s not a strategy that would work in court. But the Senate is not, at the end of the day, a court—even when it’s sitting as the trial court of an impeachment. The Senate is a body composed of people who, as the past few years of Republicans’ willing subjection to Trump have shown, are exquisitely sensitive to this sort of pressure.
And the more absurdly bombastic the defense gets, the stronger this message becomes.
Trump's Impeachment Brief Is a Howl of Rage
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/answer-president-donald-j-trump-raises-questions/605227/Trump’s Impeachment Brief Is a Howl of Rage
The document released by the president’s lawyers reads more like the scream of a wounded animal than a traditional legal filing.
11:55 AM ET
Quinta Jurecic
Contributing writer at The Atlantic and managing editor of Lawfare
Benjamin Wittes
Contributing writer at The Atlantic and editor in chief of Lawfare
Over the weekend, as the Senate prepared for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the newly appointed House impeachment managers and the president’s newly appointed legal team both filed their initial legal briefs.
At least, one of them was a legal brief. The other read more like the scream of a wounded animal.
snip//
By contrast, the White House’s “Answer of President Donald J. Trump” to the articles of impeachment, filed by the president’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, does not read like a traditional legal argument at all. It begins with a series of rhetorical flourishes—all of them, to one degree or another, false. The articles of impeachment are “a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President,” the president’s lawyers write—as though the impeachment power were not a constitutional reality every bit as enshrined in the founding document as the quadrennial election of the president. The articles are “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election,” and are “constitutionally invalid on their face,” they write, as though the president’s right to extort foreign leaders for political services were so beyond reasonable question, it is outrageous that anyone might object to it.
This document reads like one of the president’s speeches at his campaign rallies. The language is a little more lawyerly, if only a little. In Sekulow and Cipollone’s hands, Trump’s cries of “Witch hunt!” have turned into “lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.” His allegations that Democrats are a “disgrace” have turned into “an affront to the Constitution.” And Trump’s insistence that there’s a plot to destroy his presidency has become a “highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president [that] began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.”
But the message is unchanged. It’s not a legal argument. It’s a howl of rage.
snip//
But the flip side of Trump’s insistence on his own preeminence is his grasping need for other people to reaffirm him. And so the president’s defense, the argument and the team alike, has another purpose: It’s a message to Republican senators. It says to each of them that no, the White House will not make a factual argument on the merits of the case—not a real one, anyway. And no, it will not make a real legal argument either. It, rather, will announce that, per George Orwell, two plus two equals five. And it will demand of the senators that they get in line to endorse that proposition, preferably on television, where the president can see. It will be a failure of loyalty if they are not willing to do this. And they will be subject to retaliation.
It’s not a strategy that would work in court. But the Senate is not, at the end of the day, a court—even when it’s sitting as the trial court of an impeachment. The Senate is a body composed of people who, as the past few years of Republicans’ willing subjection to Trump have shown, are exquisitely sensitive to this sort of pressure.
And the more absurdly bombastic the defense gets, the stronger this message becomes.
January 20, 2020
McConnell’s blackout and media restrictions on Trump’s impeachment trial are a trashing of press freedom to protect Donald Trump. The Senate Majority Leader doesn’t want the American people to see what is going on at Trump’s trial.
McConnell has limited access to the Senate jurors, banned reporters from bringing electronic devices into the chamber during the trial, and done everything in his power to limit what the public will be able to see, hear, and read about the impeachment trial.
The Senate Majority is following Trump’s lead and restricting press freedom during a historic event in the nation’s history. McConnell is doing everything in his power to sweep Trump’s trial under the rug, but the information will get out, as Mitch McConnell can’t hide Trump’s true crimes and impeachable offenses.
Mitch McConnell Blocks Reporters From Shooting Video Of House Impeachment Managers
Sounds like he doesn't want a record of anything. Good luck with that, moscow mitch. 
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/20/mitch-mcconnell-blocks-reporters-from-shooting-video-of-house-impeachment-managers.html
Posted on Mon, Jan 20th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Mitch McConnell Blocks Reporters From Shooting Video Of House Impeachment Managers
Mitch McConnell wouldn’t allow reporters inside the Senate chamber and refused to allow reporters to shoot video of the House managers entering and exiting.
Here is the latest attempt by McConnell to limit coverage of Trump’s impeachment trial:
Andrew Desiderio
✔
@AndrewDesiderio
More ridiculous press restrictions on Capitol Hill today.
Reporters are being blocked from accessing the Senate chamber during the impeachment managers’ walk-through this morning. TV cameras aren’t allowed to shoot any video outside the Senate chamber as the managers enter/exit.
3,466
10:53 AM - Jan 20, 2020
✔
@AndrewDesiderio
More ridiculous press restrictions on Capitol Hill today.
Reporters are being blocked from accessing the Senate chamber during the impeachment managers’ walk-through this morning. TV cameras aren’t allowed to shoot any video outside the Senate chamber as the managers enter/exit.
3,466
10:53 AM - Jan 20, 2020
McConnell’s blackout and media restrictions on Trump’s impeachment trial are a trashing of press freedom to protect Donald Trump. The Senate Majority Leader doesn’t want the American people to see what is going on at Trump’s trial.
McConnell has limited access to the Senate jurors, banned reporters from bringing electronic devices into the chamber during the trial, and done everything in his power to limit what the public will be able to see, hear, and read about the impeachment trial.
The Senate Majority is following Trump’s lead and restricting press freedom during a historic event in the nation’s history. McConnell is doing everything in his power to sweep Trump’s trial under the rug, but the information will get out, as Mitch McConnell can’t hide Trump’s true crimes and impeachable offenses.
January 20, 2020
51 mins ago
Donald Trump, a Racist, Sends Awful Tweet About MLK Jr Day
Ben Dreyfuss
Editorial Director for Growth and StrategyBio | Follow
The Washington Post on January 17th:
Donald Trump is a racist. This has been true since long before he became president. It was true when he called for the Central Park Five to get the death penalty. It was true when he was called out for not hiring black people. It was true when he said he would be more succesfull if he were black. It was true when he said Obama was born in Kenya. It has been true throughout his presidency. It will be true long after his presidency is over. Time and time again he has shown it every step of the way.
Donald Trump, today:
What an embarrassment.
Donald Trump, a Racist, Sends Awful Tweet About MLK Jr Day
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/donald-trump-a-racist-sends-awful-tweet-about-mlk-jr-day/51 mins ago
Donald Trump, a Racist, Sends Awful Tweet About MLK Jr Day
Ben Dreyfuss
Editorial Director for Growth and StrategyBio | Follow
The Washington Post on January 17th:
More than 8 in 10 black Americans say they believe Trump is a racist and that he has made racism a bigger problem in the country. Nine in 10 disapprove of his job performance overall.
The pessimism goes well beyond assessments of the president. A 65 percent majority of African Americans say it is a “bad time” to be a black person in America. That view is widely shared by clear majorities of black adults across income, generational and political lines. By contrast, 77 percent of black Americans say it is a “good time” to be a white person, with a wide majority saying white people don’t understand the discrimination faced by black Americans.
Courtney Tate, a 40-year-old elementary school teacher in Irving, Tex., outside Dallas, said that since Trump was elected, he’s been having more conversations with his co-workers — discussions that are simultaneously enlightening and exhausting — about racial issues he and his students face every day.
“As a black person, you’ve always seen all the racism, the microaggressions. But as white people, they don’t understand this is how things are going for me,” said Tate, who said he is the only black male teacher in his school. “They don’t live those experiences. They don’t live in those neighborhoods. They moved out. It’s so easy to be white and oblivious in this country.”
The pessimism goes well beyond assessments of the president. A 65 percent majority of African Americans say it is a “bad time” to be a black person in America. That view is widely shared by clear majorities of black adults across income, generational and political lines. By contrast, 77 percent of black Americans say it is a “good time” to be a white person, with a wide majority saying white people don’t understand the discrimination faced by black Americans.
Courtney Tate, a 40-year-old elementary school teacher in Irving, Tex., outside Dallas, said that since Trump was elected, he’s been having more conversations with his co-workers — discussions that are simultaneously enlightening and exhausting — about racial issues he and his students face every day.
“As a black person, you’ve always seen all the racism, the microaggressions. But as white people, they don’t understand this is how things are going for me,” said Tate, who said he is the only black male teacher in his school. “They don’t live those experiences. They don’t live in those neighborhoods. They moved out. It’s so easy to be white and oblivious in this country.”
Donald Trump is a racist. This has been true since long before he became president. It was true when he called for the Central Park Five to get the death penalty. It was true when he was called out for not hiring black people. It was true when he said he would be more succesfull if he were black. It was true when he said Obama was born in Kenya. It has been true throughout his presidency. It will be true long after his presidency is over. Time and time again he has shown it every step of the way.
Donald Trump, today:
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017, that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great!
61K
2:59 PM - Jan 20, 2020
✔
@realDonaldTrump
It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017, that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great!
61K
2:59 PM - Jan 20, 2020
What an embarrassment.
January 20, 2020
De Niro calls out 'blatant abuse of power' in SAG acceptance speech
By Aris Folley - 01/20/20 07:28 AM EST
Robert De Niro, who has long been a vocal critic of President Trump, stopped short of calling out the president by name while being honored at the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards late Sunday, but vowed to speak out whenever he sees “a blatant abuse of power.”
According to The Associated Press, the “Irishman” star was being presented with a lifetime achievement award by Leonardo DiCaprio, another Hollywood star who has used his platform to take aim at Trump, particularly over climate issues, in recent years.
Trump's impeachment trial on two House-passed charges -- abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- begins Tuesday in the Senate.
more...
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/479016-de-niro-calls-out-blatant-abuse-of-power-in-sag-acceptance
De Niro calls out 'blatant abuse of power' in SAG acceptance speech
De Niro calls out 'blatant abuse of power' in SAG acceptance speech
By Aris Folley - 01/20/20 07:28 AM EST
Robert De Niro, who has long been a vocal critic of President Trump, stopped short of calling out the president by name while being honored at the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards late Sunday, but vowed to speak out whenever he sees “a blatant abuse of power.”
“There’s right and there’s wrong, and there’s common sense and there’s abuse of power,” De Niro said shortly after taking the stage.
According to The Associated Press, the “Irishman” star was being presented with a lifetime achievement award by Leonardo DiCaprio, another Hollywood star who has used his platform to take aim at Trump, particularly over climate issues, in recent years.
“As a citizen, I have as much right as anybody — an actor, an athlete, anybody else — to voice my opinion. And if I have a bigger voice because of my situation, I’m going to use it whenever I see a blatant abuse of power,” De Niro said before adding: “That’s all I’m going to say.”
Trump's impeachment trial on two House-passed charges -- abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- begins Tuesday in the Senate.
more...
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/479016-de-niro-calls-out-blatant-abuse-of-power-in-sag-acceptance
January 20, 2020
Posted on Sun, Jan 19th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Trump Adviser On Russia Physically Removed From White House
Trump adviser on Europe and Russia issues, Andrew Peek, was removed from the White House and is under a security-related investigation.
The AP reported:
Peek was removed from the White House because for some reason, he was deemed a national security risk, while he is under investigation. The Trump administration has said nothing because their mission is to keep the American people as uninformed as possible about what their own government is doing.
If Peek was the victim or target of an overseas operation, he would not have been escorted off of the grounds and placed on administrative leave.
It is not every day that a presidential adviser gets removed by security because they are under investigation. The Peek story is worth watching because it is the first hint of smoke in what could be a whole lot of fire.
Trump Adviser On Russia Physically Removed From White House
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/19/trump-adviser-to-europe-and-russia-physically-removed-from-white-house-due-to-security-issues.htmlPosted on Sun, Jan 19th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Trump Adviser On Russia Physically Removed From White House
Trump adviser on Europe and Russia issues, Andrew Peek, was removed from the White House and is under a security-related investigation.
The AP reported:
A White House adviser on Europe and Russia issues has been placed on administrative leave pending a security-related investigation, two people with knowledge of his exit said Sunday.
Andrew Peek was escorted off the White House compound on Friday, according to one of those familiar with his departure.
Andrew Peek was escorted off the White House compound on Friday, according to one of those familiar with his departure.
Peek was removed from the White House because for some reason, he was deemed a national security risk, while he is under investigation. The Trump administration has said nothing because their mission is to keep the American people as uninformed as possible about what their own government is doing.
If Peek was the victim or target of an overseas operation, he would not have been escorted off of the grounds and placed on administrative leave.
It is not every day that a presidential adviser gets removed by security because they are under investigation. The Peek story is worth watching because it is the first hint of smoke in what could be a whole lot of fire.
January 20, 2020
The bottom line: Sources close to Trump's legal team have privately expressed confidence that former national security adviser Bolton will ultimately honor Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card
The ole 'throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks' strategy. 
https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-strategy-national-security-d7f605d2-0335-45e7-84f3-1e799fec39b5.html
Alayna Treene, Jonathan Swan
12 hours ago
Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card
Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.
The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.
Why it matters: They're banking on it to speed up the trial, according to people close to the president.
What we're hearing: White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who considers himself a civil libertarian, is expected to argue that the obstruction of Congress article is dangerous and could forever undermine the power of the executive office to protect privileged information.
Cipollone will likely frame the Senate trial as a defining moment to set the precedent for executive privilege, especially on national security matters, per a source familiar with his thinking.
This approach is something Cipollone is particularly proud of, and one that he is happy to test in court, the source said.
The argument: Presidential claims of executive privilege are especially strong when they involve conversations about national security.
Weakening that privilege would make presidents less candid when they seek counsel from their advisers on national security (think John Bolton).
This approach is something Cipollone is particularly proud of, and one that he is happy to test in court, the source said.
The argument: Presidential claims of executive privilege are especially strong when they involve conversations about national security.
Weakening that privilege would make presidents less candid when they seek counsel from their advisers on national security (think John Bolton).
The bottom line: Sources close to Trump's legal team have privately expressed confidence that former national security adviser Bolton will ultimately honor Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,050