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 20, 2020
I’m Really Tired of Hatred
January 16, 2020 / John Pavlovitz
snip//
That’s it. I’m tired of hatred—like, really tired.
I am so damn tired of hatred—and yes, I’m tired of hating it all too.
snip//
Maybe if we make this world a little bit more loving in the small and the close and the present, maybe the ripples will eventually reach the big and the distant in the future.
Then maybe everyone who’s as fully tired of hatred as we are—will finally get some rest.
I'm Really Tired of Hatred
https://johnpavlovitz.com/2020/01/16/im-tired-of-hatred/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John+Pavlovitz&fbclid=IwAR02TrgQq56fo0uhczQGbfu7x_jDWoVJ8YKCsoWP_Ep_cl5Zj4CqfOTqWPUI’m Really Tired of Hatred
January 16, 2020 / John Pavlovitz
snip//
That’s it. I’m tired of hatred—like, really tired.
I’m tired of waking every morning and seeing that we’re in an another unnecessary and preventable Constitutional crisis.
I’m tired of having to once again channel the adrenaline to confront a new onslaught of real and manufactured emergencies.
I’m tired of having to desperately appeal to public servants to do the decent and humane thing and seeing them again flatly refuse.
I’m tired of trying to convince professed followers of Jesus that they’re supposed to care about other people.
I’m tired of dancing through minefields at family gatherings; doing verbal gymnastics to sidestep relational explosions and to keep loving people I’ve recently learned unsettling things about.
I’m tired of scrolling through racist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic hate speech filling my social media mentions.
I’m tired of being reminded daily of the white supremacy that my former church friends are so terribly afflicted with.
I’m tired of seeing stories of newly-emboldened bigots showing up as neighbors, elementary school teachers, local politicians, and coffee shop patrons—because they feel a kindred embittered spirit in the White House.
I’m tired of boastful, nonsensical, intentionally-provocative Presidential tweets littered with Democrat slander, wall-building taunts, and abject lies.
I’m tired of having to once again channel the adrenaline to confront a new onslaught of real and manufactured emergencies.
I’m tired of having to desperately appeal to public servants to do the decent and humane thing and seeing them again flatly refuse.
I’m tired of trying to convince professed followers of Jesus that they’re supposed to care about other people.
I’m tired of dancing through minefields at family gatherings; doing verbal gymnastics to sidestep relational explosions and to keep loving people I’ve recently learned unsettling things about.
I’m tired of scrolling through racist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic hate speech filling my social media mentions.
I’m tired of being reminded daily of the white supremacy that my former church friends are so terribly afflicted with.
I’m tired of seeing stories of newly-emboldened bigots showing up as neighbors, elementary school teachers, local politicians, and coffee shop patrons—because they feel a kindred embittered spirit in the White House.
I’m tired of boastful, nonsensical, intentionally-provocative Presidential tweets littered with Democrat slander, wall-building taunts, and abject lies.
I am so damn tired of hatred—and yes, I’m tired of hating it all too.
I’m tired of continually confronting ugliness—and of the increasing ugliness it brings out in me as I do.
I’m tired of walking into a room and trying to calculate inside my head, how many of them there are—and resenting human beings I’ve never met based on my evaluation.
I’m tired of assuming the worst in people because the bumper sticker on their car or the red hat atop their head or the channel they get their news from.
I’m tired of the impatience and irritability always sitting just below the surface of my countenance, and how often it breaks violently through and into my day in angry words in traffic or expletives spoken under my breath or easy frustration with the normal inconveniences of life.
I’m tired of regularly losing my religion as I fight both for and with my faith tradition: being anything but Christlike while advocating for the teachings of Jesus.
I’m tired of feeling a growing hopelessness when I see the people we’re becoming.
I’m tired of walking into a room and trying to calculate inside my head, how many of them there are—and resenting human beings I’ve never met based on my evaluation.
I’m tired of assuming the worst in people because the bumper sticker on their car or the red hat atop their head or the channel they get their news from.
I’m tired of the impatience and irritability always sitting just below the surface of my countenance, and how often it breaks violently through and into my day in angry words in traffic or expletives spoken under my breath or easy frustration with the normal inconveniences of life.
I’m tired of regularly losing my religion as I fight both for and with my faith tradition: being anything but Christlike while advocating for the teachings of Jesus.
I’m tired of feeling a growing hopelessness when I see the people we’re becoming.
snip//
Maybe if we make this world a little bit more loving in the small and the close and the present, maybe the ripples will eventually reach the big and the distant in the future.
Then maybe everyone who’s as fully tired of hatred as we are—will finally get some rest.
January 19, 2020
Planned Parenthood pumping $45 million into 2020 elections in its largest voting push ever
Lauren Floyd
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday January 16, 2020 · 3:41 PM EST
Planned Parenthood has apparently had enough of President Donald Trump and anti-abortion advocates. The reproductive healthcare nonprofit announced it would be investing $45 million in presidential, state, and congressional races this year to continue its fight for abortion rights, according to CBS News. Planned Parenthood Votes executive director Jenny Lawson told the news network that "The stakes have never been higher." She said the Trump Administration “has managed to undo so much over the last three years." One of the administration’s many targets is the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973. "The fact that this summer the Supreme Court might gut Roe v. Wade is an indicator of their intention and they've never been so bold," Lawson said.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments March 4 in a legal challenge to a 2014 Louisiana law that’s temporarily blocked from mandating that doctors must have admitting privileges at local hospitals in order to perform abortions, according to the court docket. If allowed to take effect, the law would mean only one doctor would be authorized to perform abortions in Louisiana, according to The New York Times.
snip//
The Louisiana law is nothing more than an exploited loophole: a wolf to women’s reproductive rights, wearing health and safety concerns as its sheep’s clothing.
Planned Parenthood pumping $45 million into 2020 elections in its largest voting push ever
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/16/1911932/-Planned-Parenthood-pumping-45-million-into-2020-elections-in-its-largest-voting-push-everPlanned Parenthood pumping $45 million into 2020 elections in its largest voting push ever
Lauren Floyd
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday January 16, 2020 · 3:41 PM EST
Planned Parenthood has apparently had enough of President Donald Trump and anti-abortion advocates. The reproductive healthcare nonprofit announced it would be investing $45 million in presidential, state, and congressional races this year to continue its fight for abortion rights, according to CBS News. Planned Parenthood Votes executive director Jenny Lawson told the news network that "The stakes have never been higher." She said the Trump Administration “has managed to undo so much over the last three years." One of the administration’s many targets is the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973. "The fact that this summer the Supreme Court might gut Roe v. Wade is an indicator of their intention and they've never been so bold," Lawson said.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments March 4 in a legal challenge to a 2014 Louisiana law that’s temporarily blocked from mandating that doctors must have admitting privileges at local hospitals in order to perform abortions, according to the court docket. If allowed to take effect, the law would mean only one doctor would be authorized to perform abortions in Louisiana, according to The New York Times.
“Reports indicate this law could cause some of Louisiana's five remaining health centers providing safe and legal abortion to close their doors, which could end access south of Shreveport,” Planned Parenthood said on its website. “A woman would have to drive up to 300 miles one way to obtain safe, legal abortion care.” The law is part of a “national trend,” the nonprofit added. “With these same dangerous restrictions enacted in neighboring states, the United States is becoming a country where a woman's ability to make personal medical decisions without interference from politicians will be dependent upon where she lives,” Planned Parenthood said.
snip//
The Louisiana law is nothing more than an exploited loophole: a wolf to women’s reproductive rights, wearing health and safety concerns as its sheep’s clothing.
January 19, 2020
Jason Crow shreds Trump's impeachment defense on CNN's State Of The Union
Posted on Sun, Jan 19th, 2020 by Jason Easley
House Impeachment Manager Rips A Giant Hole In Trump’s Defense
House impeachment manager, Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), gashed Trump’s impeachment defense by arguing that requiring a crime means no president can be impeached.
Rep. Crow said on CNN’s State Of The Union when asked about Trump’s impeachment defense:
Trump is making a more dangerous argument than defending himself with witnesses and documents. Trump is arguing that the concept of impeachment without a criminal act is invalid. The Trump argument goes against every reading of the constitution, with the exception of one lawyer, who is on Trump’s defense team.
If the framers would have intended for criminal acts to be the standard for impeachment, that is what they would have written in the constitution. The Founders would have specified criminal acts instead of crimes and misdemeanors.
Trump is using the impeachment trial to attack the system of divided co-equal branches of government.
Rep. Crow was right. Trump’s argument is a grave danger to the underpinnings of the system of governance.
House Impeachment Manager Rips A Giant Hole In Trump's Defense
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/19/house-impeachment-manager-trump-defense.htmlJason Crow shreds Trump's impeachment defense on CNN's State Of The Union
Posted on Sun, Jan 19th, 2020 by Jason Easley
House Impeachment Manager Rips A Giant Hole In Trump’s Defense
House impeachment manager, Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), gashed Trump’s impeachment defense by arguing that requiring a crime means no president can be impeached.
Rep. Crow said on CNN’s State Of The Union when asked about Trump’s impeachment defense:
The president’s team is trying to say that the president can’t be indicted because it is DOJ policy that the standing president or the sitting president cannot be indicted, but at the same time making arguments that the House of Representatives and Congress cannot subpoena documents or witnesses, and that we can’t bring an impeachment case, and that it has to be a crime, and that high crimes and misdemeanors do not include abuse of power and abuse of the public trust.
So if all of the president’s arguments are true that a president cannot be indicted, that the abuse of power and the abuse of the public trust does not constitute impeachable offense, and if that is true, no president can be held accountable, and that the president is truly above the law. And so those arguments can’t be possibly true or stand because then the entire system of checks and balances would not hold.
So if all of the president’s arguments are true that a president cannot be indicted, that the abuse of power and the abuse of the public trust does not constitute impeachable offense, and if that is true, no president can be held accountable, and that the president is truly above the law. And so those arguments can’t be possibly true or stand because then the entire system of checks and balances would not hold.
Trump is making a more dangerous argument than defending himself with witnesses and documents. Trump is arguing that the concept of impeachment without a criminal act is invalid. The Trump argument goes against every reading of the constitution, with the exception of one lawyer, who is on Trump’s defense team.
If the framers would have intended for criminal acts to be the standard for impeachment, that is what they would have written in the constitution. The Founders would have specified criminal acts instead of crimes and misdemeanors.
Trump is using the impeachment trial to attack the system of divided co-equal branches of government.
Rep. Crow was right. Trump’s argument is a grave danger to the underpinnings of the system of governance.
January 19, 2020
Remove Trump protesters are starting to fill Union Station in DC
https://twitter.com/i/status/1218643209733267458
January 19, 2020
Trump Is a Remorseless Advocate of Crimes Against Humanity
By William Saletan
Jan 18, 2020
10:00 AM
It’s hard to keep up with President Donald Trump’s scandals. One day he’s covering up taxpayer-funded travel expenses for his family. The next, he’s stealing money for his border wall. The next, he’s being implicated by an accomplice in the extortion of Ukraine. But one horror is right out in the open: Trump is a remorseless advocate of crimes against humanity. His latest threats against Iran, Iraq, and Syria are a reminder that he’s as ruthless as any foreign dictator. He’s just more constrained.
Trump admires tyrants and defends their atrocities. He has excused North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s mass executions (“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people”) and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s murders of journalists and dissidents (“At least he’s a leader”). As a presidential candidate, Trump shrugged off the gravity of using chemical weapons. “Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy,” he joked.
At home, Trump has encouraged religious persecution and political violence. He called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States (he later imposed a modified version of the ban) and for collective punishment of Muslims who live here. As a candidate, Trump urged his supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters. In 2018, at a political rally, he praised a Republican congressman for criminally assaulting a reporter. “Any guy that can do a body slam,” said Trump, “he’s my guy.”
Trump has long advocated war crimes. He has endorsed torture not just for information, but because our enemies “deserve it.” As a candidate, he proposed that for the sake of “retribution,” the United States should “take out” the families of terrorists. Wives and children were legitimate targets, he argued, because by killing them, we could deter terrorists who “care more about their families than they care about themselves.” Two months ago, he intervened in legal and military proceedings to thwart punishment of three American servicemen who had been indicted for or convicted of atrocities. Then he deployed the men in his reelection campaign.
Trump agrees with past presidents that we and our terrorist adversaries have played by “two [different] sets of rules.” But unlike his predecessors, he takes no pride in America’s higher standards. He sees them as a needless impediment, defended by “weak” and “stupid” people. In 2016, Trump complained that ISIS was “cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind.” Torture laws should be relaxed, he argued, “so that we can better compete with a vicious group of animals.” “You have to play the game the way they’re playing the game,” he explained.
Trump takes no pride in America’s higher standards. He sees them as a needless impediment, defended by “weak” and “stupid” people.
Some presidents have caused pain through recklessness or indifference. Trump inflicts pain on purpose. To deter migration from Latin America, his administration separated migrant parents from their children. Trump argued that the separation was a “disincentive.” Too many people, he explained, were “coming up because they’re not going to be separated from their children.” Later, he used the same sadistic logic to force a migration in Syria. He boasted that by facilitating Turkey’s invasion of that country, he had precipitated the “pain and suffering” necessary to compel Syrian Kurds “to leave.”
snip//
Having an evil president doesn’t make the United States evil. We have a lot to be proud of: a culture of freedom, a strong constitution, vigorous courts, democratic accountability, and laws that protect minorities and human rights. On balance, we’ve been a force for good in the world. But Trump’s election and his persistent approval from more than 40 percent of Americans are a reminder that nothing in our national character protects us from becoming a rapacious, authoritarian country. What protects us are institutions that stop us from doing our worst.
Trump Is a Remorseless Advocate of Crimes Against Humanity
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-remorseless-advocate-crimes-against-humanity.htmlTrump Is a Remorseless Advocate of Crimes Against Humanity
By William Saletan
Jan 18, 2020
10:00 AM
It’s hard to keep up with President Donald Trump’s scandals. One day he’s covering up taxpayer-funded travel expenses for his family. The next, he’s stealing money for his border wall. The next, he’s being implicated by an accomplice in the extortion of Ukraine. But one horror is right out in the open: Trump is a remorseless advocate of crimes against humanity. His latest threats against Iran, Iraq, and Syria are a reminder that he’s as ruthless as any foreign dictator. He’s just more constrained.
Trump admires tyrants and defends their atrocities. He has excused North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s mass executions (“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people”) and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s murders of journalists and dissidents (“At least he’s a leader”). As a presidential candidate, Trump shrugged off the gravity of using chemical weapons. “Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy,” he joked.
At home, Trump has encouraged religious persecution and political violence. He called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States (he later imposed a modified version of the ban) and for collective punishment of Muslims who live here. As a candidate, Trump urged his supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters. In 2018, at a political rally, he praised a Republican congressman for criminally assaulting a reporter. “Any guy that can do a body slam,” said Trump, “he’s my guy.”
Trump has long advocated war crimes. He has endorsed torture not just for information, but because our enemies “deserve it.” As a candidate, he proposed that for the sake of “retribution,” the United States should “take out” the families of terrorists. Wives and children were legitimate targets, he argued, because by killing them, we could deter terrorists who “care more about their families than they care about themselves.” Two months ago, he intervened in legal and military proceedings to thwart punishment of three American servicemen who had been indicted for or convicted of atrocities. Then he deployed the men in his reelection campaign.
Trump agrees with past presidents that we and our terrorist adversaries have played by “two [different] sets of rules.” But unlike his predecessors, he takes no pride in America’s higher standards. He sees them as a needless impediment, defended by “weak” and “stupid” people. In 2016, Trump complained that ISIS was “cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind.” Torture laws should be relaxed, he argued, “so that we can better compete with a vicious group of animals.” “You have to play the game the way they’re playing the game,” he explained.
Trump takes no pride in America’s higher standards. He sees them as a needless impediment, defended by “weak” and “stupid” people.
Some presidents have caused pain through recklessness or indifference. Trump inflicts pain on purpose. To deter migration from Latin America, his administration separated migrant parents from their children. Trump argued that the separation was a “disincentive.” Too many people, he explained, were “coming up because they’re not going to be separated from their children.” Later, he used the same sadistic logic to force a migration in Syria. He boasted that by facilitating Turkey’s invasion of that country, he had precipitated the “pain and suffering” necessary to compel Syrian Kurds “to leave.”
snip//
Having an evil president doesn’t make the United States evil. We have a lot to be proud of: a culture of freedom, a strong constitution, vigorous courts, democratic accountability, and laws that protect minorities and human rights. On balance, we’ve been a force for good in the world. But Trump’s election and his persistent approval from more than 40 percent of Americans are a reminder that nothing in our national character protects us from becoming a rapacious, authoritarian country. What protects us are institutions that stop us from doing our worst.
January 19, 2020
1/18/20 9:31am
Maya Wiley Shreds Dershowitz's Assertion That Abuse Of Power Isn't Impeachable
There is not one Constitutional scholar alive that thinks abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense. Especially at this level.
By Aliza Worthington
VIDEO @ link~
Alan Dershowitz appeared on Ari Melber's show, The Beat, last night, to outline his strategy for defending Donald Jenius Trump against impeachment charges in the Senate trial. Immediately after Dersh's appearance, Melber turned to former federal prosecutor, Maya Wiley for her impressions. They were...unfavorable.
Basically, there is not one Constitutional scholar or legal mind worth their salt willing to assert that abuse of power is not impeachable. Here we have Alan Dershowitz, though, pledging to pursue that very strategy. And Maya Wiley finds that, well, incredible.
Maya Wiley Shreds Dershowitz's Assertion That Abuse Of Power Isn't Impeachable
https://crooksandliars.com/2020/01/maya-wiley-shreds-dershowitzs-assertion1/18/20 9:31am
Maya Wiley Shreds Dershowitz's Assertion That Abuse Of Power Isn't Impeachable
There is not one Constitutional scholar alive that thinks abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense. Especially at this level.
By Aliza Worthington
VIDEO @ link~
Alan Dershowitz appeared on Ari Melber's show, The Beat, last night, to outline his strategy for defending Donald Jenius Trump against impeachment charges in the Senate trial. Immediately after Dersh's appearance, Melber turned to former federal prosecutor, Maya Wiley for her impressions. They were...unfavorable.
MELBER: Maya, what did you think of the professor's remarks?
WILEY: I thought they were incredible. And what I mean by that is that there are a large number of Constitutional scholars. We heard three of them testify before the House Judiciary Committee, who said, abuse of power is absolutely something that a president can be impeached for. And by the way, the fourth Constitutional scholar, who was called by the Republicans, John Turley, also conceded that had a president could be impeached for abuse of power. His argument was that there was insufficient evidence, which is a different argument from Alan Dershowitz's.
MELBER: And yet, Professor Dershowitz is surfacing something that we know for a fact that it will come up at this high stakes trial, which is there was a debate over whether to include bribery, viewers of this show know we discussed that, reported on it, and they went with abuse of power. He says that there is absolutely no way to support abuse of power. As you mentioned, there is, and there is a text on that. But, is it interesting to you, given his real experience in court rooms, that he is seizing on that and he wants to make this a high sort of constitutional, textual debate about, maybe you picked the wrong thing. Maybe it's not even a high crime.
WILEY: As a strategy I think it can help serve the argument that these aren't impeachable offenses that's the it turns to being an evidentiary standard. Which I would find ironic because we have an obstruction. I found that argument implausible. That a president can assert executive privilege over every single shred of everything in government. And then somehow not be obstructing Congress, when that's not even the way the privilege functions.
MELBER: And then briefly, before I turn to drew, I'm curious, because we've been through so many stories together, Maya, what did you think Professor Dershowitz who I know does things for a reason and has a strategy. What is his interest and emphasis on trying distinguish his role? We got into, finally concede, he'll be going out on that floor as Trump lawyer. There are no people allowed, there's no guests, no plus ones at the Senate trial. What is he getting out there, and trying to say he's different than other lawyers, somehow.
Report Advertisement
WILEY: I think it is two things. One, there is some liability to having an Alan Dershowitz as your defense attorney. because he's been implicated, not in the sense of being charged. just want to be clear I'm not saying there's sufficient facts. But Alan Dershowitz is implicated in some relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
MELBER: Which is a big controversy for the administration.
WILEY: Not a good look of but it's also, one last point quickly, it is also that it enables him to be seen as an independent analyzer of the Constitution.
MELBER: Which is an argument he will be making, when in fact he'll be a zealous advocate.
WILEY: I thought they were incredible. And what I mean by that is that there are a large number of Constitutional scholars. We heard three of them testify before the House Judiciary Committee, who said, abuse of power is absolutely something that a president can be impeached for. And by the way, the fourth Constitutional scholar, who was called by the Republicans, John Turley, also conceded that had a president could be impeached for abuse of power. His argument was that there was insufficient evidence, which is a different argument from Alan Dershowitz's.
MELBER: And yet, Professor Dershowitz is surfacing something that we know for a fact that it will come up at this high stakes trial, which is there was a debate over whether to include bribery, viewers of this show know we discussed that, reported on it, and they went with abuse of power. He says that there is absolutely no way to support abuse of power. As you mentioned, there is, and there is a text on that. But, is it interesting to you, given his real experience in court rooms, that he is seizing on that and he wants to make this a high sort of constitutional, textual debate about, maybe you picked the wrong thing. Maybe it's not even a high crime.
WILEY: As a strategy I think it can help serve the argument that these aren't impeachable offenses that's the it turns to being an evidentiary standard. Which I would find ironic because we have an obstruction. I found that argument implausible. That a president can assert executive privilege over every single shred of everything in government. And then somehow not be obstructing Congress, when that's not even the way the privilege functions.
MELBER: And then briefly, before I turn to drew, I'm curious, because we've been through so many stories together, Maya, what did you think Professor Dershowitz who I know does things for a reason and has a strategy. What is his interest and emphasis on trying distinguish his role? We got into, finally concede, he'll be going out on that floor as Trump lawyer. There are no people allowed, there's no guests, no plus ones at the Senate trial. What is he getting out there, and trying to say he's different than other lawyers, somehow.
Report Advertisement
WILEY: I think it is two things. One, there is some liability to having an Alan Dershowitz as your defense attorney. because he's been implicated, not in the sense of being charged. just want to be clear I'm not saying there's sufficient facts. But Alan Dershowitz is implicated in some relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
MELBER: Which is a big controversy for the administration.
WILEY: Not a good look of but it's also, one last point quickly, it is also that it enables him to be seen as an independent analyzer of the Constitution.
MELBER: Which is an argument he will be making, when in fact he'll be a zealous advocate.
Basically, there is not one Constitutional scholar or legal mind worth their salt willing to assert that abuse of power is not impeachable. Here we have Alan Dershowitz, though, pledging to pursue that very strategy. And Maya Wiley finds that, well, incredible.
January 19, 2020
Posted on Sat, Jan 18th, 2020 by Jason Easley
House Impeachment Managers File Crushing Brief Arguing For Trump’s Conviction
The Democratic House impeachment managers have filed a brief laying out their case arguing for Trump’s conviction and removal.
The House Impeachment managers wrote:
The impeachment managers, Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia, wrote in a joint statement provided to PoliticusUSA, “The case against the President of the United States is simple, the facts are indisputable, and the evidence is overwhelming: President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy. And when the President got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House’s investigation into his misconduct. Senators must accept and fulfill the responsibility placed on them by the Framers of our Constitution and the Oaths they have just taken to do impartial justice. They must conduct a fair trial — fair to the President and fair to the American people.”
The case against Trump is open and closed. There is no doubt that the president did what he has been accused of doing. The fact that his defense is going to that he did it, but it’s not an impeachable offense, concedes the facts of the case.
Trump has no evidence or witnesses to present on his behalf. Trump is guilty. The question is what is the Senate going to do about it?
House Impeachment Managers File Crushing Brief Arguing For Trump's Conviction
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/18/house-impeachment-managers-file-crushing-brief-arguing-for-trumps-conviction.htmlPosted on Sat, Jan 18th, 2020 by Jason Easley
House Impeachment Managers File Crushing Brief Arguing For Trump’s Conviction
The Democratic House impeachment managers have filed a brief laying out their case arguing for Trump’s conviction and removal.
The House Impeachment managers wrote:
The Constitution entrusts Congress with the solemn task of impeaching and removing from office a President who engages in “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The impeachment power is an essential check on the authority of the President, and Congress must exercise this power when the President places his personal or political interests above those of the Nation. President Trump has done exactly that. His misconduct challenges the fundamental principle that Americans should decide American elections, and that a divided system of government, in which no single branch operates without the check and balance of the others, preserves the liberty we all hold dear.
The country is watching to see how the Senate responds. History will judge each Senator’s willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly, and defend the Constitution. The outcome of these proceedings will determine whether generations to come will enjoy a safe and secure democracy in which the President is not a king, and in which no one, particularly the President, is above the law.
The country is watching to see how the Senate responds. History will judge each Senator’s willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly, and defend the Constitution. The outcome of these proceedings will determine whether generations to come will enjoy a safe and secure democracy in which the President is not a king, and in which no one, particularly the President, is above the law.
The impeachment managers, Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia, wrote in a joint statement provided to PoliticusUSA, “The case against the President of the United States is simple, the facts are indisputable, and the evidence is overwhelming: President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy. And when the President got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House’s investigation into his misconduct. Senators must accept and fulfill the responsibility placed on them by the Framers of our Constitution and the Oaths they have just taken to do impartial justice. They must conduct a fair trial — fair to the President and fair to the American people.”
The case against Trump is open and closed. There is no doubt that the president did what he has been accused of doing. The fact that his defense is going to that he did it, but it’s not an impeachable offense, concedes the facts of the case.
Trump has no evidence or witnesses to present on his behalf. Trump is guilty. The question is what is the Senate going to do about it?
January 18, 2020
The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
1/17/2020
Trump Loses Any Time He's Judged Objectively
This week, the Government Accountability Office, essentially the federal government's rule enforcer and auditor, located in the Legislative branch, put out a decision that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld funds from Ukraine that Congress had appropriated for that country. The law that was broken is the Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president can only hold back funds if he or she asks Congress to do so. The law itself is very clear on how the president is supposed to inform Congress by a "special message" that includes several conditions. Donald Trump, of course, didn't inform Congress at all.
By the way, the law was passed by overwhelming bipartisan margins in 1973 and 1974 before being signed by Richard Nixon, who was, you know, a Republican.
The GAO's decision is pretty starkly clear: "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA."
And it's fucking pissed at Trump and his Office of Management and Budget: "OMB and State have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the ICA regarding potential impoundments of FMF [foreign military financing] funds...We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance. GAO’s role under the ICA—to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs oversight of executive activity—is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. All federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse."
You got that? Trump violated the damn law and told Congress to go fuck itself, and the White House's refusal to allow for any oversight is simply shitting on the oath of office. Although, really, considering that Trump-humping GOP senators took an oath to be objective in the impeachment trial, oaths don't really carry any weight for these disloyal pig fellaters.
The other thing that the GAO's statement demonstrates is a truism that has held throughout Trump's entire career: almost always, when an objective legal entity looks at Trump and the law, Trump loses or has to settle. He nearly invariably is shown to be a fucking scumbag. Of course, frustratingly, while he's lost, he has never faced consequences worse than losing some money. Others, like Michael Cohen, have, but not Trump. Still, Trump's record with his major cases is simply one of failure and loss.
snip//
I just have to wonder: How fucking compromised do you have to be to wreck everything about the Constitution to support Donald fuckin' Trump? How low do you have to be? That's a question that we need answered some day.
The Rude Pundit: Trump Loses Any Time He's Judged Objectively
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2020/01/trump-loses-any-time-hes-judged.htmlThe Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
1/17/2020
Trump Loses Any Time He's Judged Objectively
This week, the Government Accountability Office, essentially the federal government's rule enforcer and auditor, located in the Legislative branch, put out a decision that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld funds from Ukraine that Congress had appropriated for that country. The law that was broken is the Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president can only hold back funds if he or she asks Congress to do so. The law itself is very clear on how the president is supposed to inform Congress by a "special message" that includes several conditions. Donald Trump, of course, didn't inform Congress at all.
By the way, the law was passed by overwhelming bipartisan margins in 1973 and 1974 before being signed by Richard Nixon, who was, you know, a Republican.
The GAO's decision is pretty starkly clear: "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA."
And it's fucking pissed at Trump and his Office of Management and Budget: "OMB and State have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the ICA regarding potential impoundments of FMF [foreign military financing] funds...We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance. GAO’s role under the ICA—to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs oversight of executive activity—is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. All federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse."
You got that? Trump violated the damn law and told Congress to go fuck itself, and the White House's refusal to allow for any oversight is simply shitting on the oath of office. Although, really, considering that Trump-humping GOP senators took an oath to be objective in the impeachment trial, oaths don't really carry any weight for these disloyal pig fellaters.
The other thing that the GAO's statement demonstrates is a truism that has held throughout Trump's entire career: almost always, when an objective legal entity looks at Trump and the law, Trump loses or has to settle. He nearly invariably is shown to be a fucking scumbag. Of course, frustratingly, while he's lost, he has never faced consequences worse than losing some money. Others, like Michael Cohen, have, but not Trump. Still, Trump's record with his major cases is simply one of failure and loss.
snip//
I just have to wonder: How fucking compromised do you have to be to wreck everything about the Constitution to support Donald fuckin' Trump? How low do you have to be? That's a question that we need answered some day.
January 18, 2020
21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case.
Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate.
By Umair Irfan Jan 17, 2020, 4:10pm EST
A three-judge panel in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to dismiss the Juliana v. US lawsuit on Friday, a seminal case involving 21 young people who sued the federal government for violating their right to a safe climate. The decision is a blow to climate activists and shows the limits of the courts’ willingness to assign legal responsibility to the government for the harms caused by greenhouse gases.
The judges all agreed that climate change is an urgent, threatening problem, but ruled that the plaintiffs, who were between the ages of 8 and 19 when the suit was filed, didn’t have standing to sue. They also said that climate policies must come from the legislative branch. “The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,” according to the ruling.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Court Judge Andrew Hurwitz conceded that climate risks are growing and that young people stand to suffer the worst impacts of rising average temperatures, like increasingly destructive floods and fires.
Andrea Rodgers, a senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit backing the youth who filed the lawsuit, described the decision in an email as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of justice.” Her organization has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks.
As politicians have failed to deliver adequate climate policies, courtrooms have emerged as a prominent venue for advancing an agenda to limit emissions, and the Juliana case was one of a number of climate change lawsuits working their way through various US courts. More than a dozen cities and counties have filed suit against companies like Exxon for the climate-related harms caused by their products. But the Juliana case stood out among climate lawsuits because it challenged the federal government rather than fossil fuel companies.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21070810/climate-change-lawsuit-juliana-vs-us-our-childrens-trust-9th-circuit
21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case.
21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case.
Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate.
By Umair Irfan Jan 17, 2020, 4:10pm EST
A three-judge panel in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to dismiss the Juliana v. US lawsuit on Friday, a seminal case involving 21 young people who sued the federal government for violating their right to a safe climate. The decision is a blow to climate activists and shows the limits of the courts’ willingness to assign legal responsibility to the government for the harms caused by greenhouse gases.
The judges all agreed that climate change is an urgent, threatening problem, but ruled that the plaintiffs, who were between the ages of 8 and 19 when the suit was filed, didn’t have standing to sue. They also said that climate policies must come from the legislative branch. “The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,” according to the ruling.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Court Judge Andrew Hurwitz conceded that climate risks are growing and that young people stand to suffer the worst impacts of rising average temperatures, like increasingly destructive floods and fires.
“In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were ‘on the eve of destruction,’” he wrote. “The plaintiffs in this case have presented compelling evidence that climate change has brought that eve nearer.”
Andrea Rodgers, a senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit backing the youth who filed the lawsuit, described the decision in an email as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of justice.” Her organization has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks.
As politicians have failed to deliver adequate climate policies, courtrooms have emerged as a prominent venue for advancing an agenda to limit emissions, and the Juliana case was one of a number of climate change lawsuits working their way through various US courts. More than a dozen cities and counties have filed suit against companies like Exxon for the climate-related harms caused by their products. But the Juliana case stood out among climate lawsuits because it challenged the federal government rather than fossil fuel companies.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21070810/climate-change-lawsuit-juliana-vs-us-our-childrens-trust-9th-circuit
January 17, 2020
Trump again denied knowing Lev Parnas. So Parnas' lawyer posted more robust proof.
[The Week]
Peter Weber
,The Week•January 17, 2020
Despite a warning from Lev Parnas, President Trump claimed not to know him again Thursday. "I don't know Parnas, other than I guess I had pictures taken, which I do with thousands of people," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "I don't know him at all, don't know what he's about, don't know where he comes from, know nothing about him. ... I don't believe I've ever spoken to him."
Jospeh Bondy, Parnas' lawyer, brought the receipts, posting a video taken at Mar-a-Lago in December 2016, where Trump is clearly talking with Parnas, who is standing next to him and also Roman Nasirov, a former Ukrainian official charged with embezzlement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1217932038260625410
more...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-again-denied-knowing-lev-082300872.html
Trump again denied knowing Lev Parnas. So Parnas' lawyer posted more robust proof.
Trump again denied knowing Lev Parnas. So Parnas' lawyer posted more robust proof.
[The Week]
Peter Weber
,The Week•January 17, 2020
Despite a warning from Lev Parnas, President Trump claimed not to know him again Thursday. "I don't know Parnas, other than I guess I had pictures taken, which I do with thousands of people," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "I don't know him at all, don't know what he's about, don't know where he comes from, know nothing about him. ... I don't believe I've ever spoken to him."
Jospeh Bondy, Parnas' lawyer, brought the receipts, posting a video taken at Mar-a-Lago in December 2016, where Trump is clearly talking with Parnas, who is standing next to him and also Roman Nasirov, a former Ukrainian official charged with embezzlement.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1217932038260625410
more...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-again-denied-knowing-lev-082300872.html
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
