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
alwaysinasnit
alwaysinasnit's Journal
alwaysinasnit's Journal
September 20, 2019
Lawyers for President Trump argued in a lawsuit filed on Thursday that he could not be criminally investigated while in office, as they sought to block a subpoena from state prosecutors in Manhattan demanding eight years of his tax returns.
Taking a broad position that the lawyers acknowledged had not been tested, the president’s legal team argued in the complaint that the Constitution effectively makes sitting presidents immune from all criminal inquiries until they leave the White House.
Presidents, they asserted, have such enormous responsibility and play a unique role in government that they cannot be subject to the burden of investigations, especially from local prosecutors who may use the criminal process for political gain.
Several constitutional law scholars interviewed by The New York Times said that if the lawyers’ position were accepted by the court, it would set a sweeping new precedent.
.............
I wonder what legal basis they are using to underpin that argument.
45's lawyers argue that it is unconstitutional to even investigate him....WTF?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/nyregion/trump-tax-returns-lawsuit.htmlLawyers for President Trump argued in a lawsuit filed on Thursday that he could not be criminally investigated while in office, as they sought to block a subpoena from state prosecutors in Manhattan demanding eight years of his tax returns.
Taking a broad position that the lawyers acknowledged had not been tested, the president’s legal team argued in the complaint that the Constitution effectively makes sitting presidents immune from all criminal inquiries until they leave the White House.
Presidents, they asserted, have such enormous responsibility and play a unique role in government that they cannot be subject to the burden of investigations, especially from local prosecutors who may use the criminal process for political gain.
Several constitutional law scholars interviewed by The New York Times said that if the lawyers’ position were accepted by the court, it would set a sweeping new precedent.
.............
I wonder what legal basis they are using to underpin that argument.
September 19, 2019
.....
As a journalist who has worked both inside and outside of establishment media, I see influence as embedded in a corporate media culture rather than in isolated cases of CEO dictates. It happens in little ways, such as how an interviewer frames a question, and in big ways, like the decision to exclude a topic, a person or a group of people from the airwaves.
Like most US companies, news organizations are hierarchies, which people who have worked in corporate offices can readily understand. Given that “90% of the United States’ media is controlled by five media conglomerates,” the top executive at many news outfits is likely the CEO of a multinational corporation. The word comes down from the business execs to the company’s division chiefs, as seen in countless movies (like the 1976 classic Network). This was how it was when I worked on primetime national news at CBS in the 1990s.
On the inside, it wasn’t easy to see organizational bias, when job security and team work required overlooking it. The response to the heavily promoted primetime news pairing of two well-known anchors exemplified how news personnel learn to toe the line. The two anchors had zero chemistry, but no one mentioned it, as if an unwritten code had been instantly internalized. This dragged on for two years, pulling down the network’s ratings.
Higher-ups would never offer editorial staff direct input on content. That’s what the executive and middle management were for. Would these managers confide to their staff that the big guns gave them a certain direction? No. Whatever it was, they would present it as their own, and it would be adopted.
.....
This article explains the inner workings of MSM news organizations and why we can't count on them.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/the-incredible-belief-that-corporate-ownership-does-not-influence-media-content/.....
As a journalist who has worked both inside and outside of establishment media, I see influence as embedded in a corporate media culture rather than in isolated cases of CEO dictates. It happens in little ways, such as how an interviewer frames a question, and in big ways, like the decision to exclude a topic, a person or a group of people from the airwaves.
Like most US companies, news organizations are hierarchies, which people who have worked in corporate offices can readily understand. Given that “90% of the United States’ media is controlled by five media conglomerates,” the top executive at many news outfits is likely the CEO of a multinational corporation. The word comes down from the business execs to the company’s division chiefs, as seen in countless movies (like the 1976 classic Network). This was how it was when I worked on primetime national news at CBS in the 1990s.
On the inside, it wasn’t easy to see organizational bias, when job security and team work required overlooking it. The response to the heavily promoted primetime news pairing of two well-known anchors exemplified how news personnel learn to toe the line. The two anchors had zero chemistry, but no one mentioned it, as if an unwritten code had been instantly internalized. This dragged on for two years, pulling down the network’s ratings.
Higher-ups would never offer editorial staff direct input on content. That’s what the executive and middle management were for. Would these managers confide to their staff that the big guns gave them a certain direction? No. Whatever it was, they would present it as their own, and it would be adopted.
.....
August 8, 2019
by Jeffrey W Ladewig, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut
The U.S. is still months away from the start of the 2020 census – but the decennial count of the country’s population is already controversial.
After the Supreme Court’s decision at the end of June, President Donald Trump conceded that the administration would no longer pursue a citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. Census.
Instead, Trump announced that he signed an executive order instructing the executive branch to share all citizenship data with the U.S. Census. He suggested that the augmented data could be used in the apportionment and redistricting processes.
I have studied and taught how the U.S. apportions seats in Congress and redraws congressional districts for two decades. These topics have been of paramount importance to democratic representation since, at least, the founding of the U.S. And both are critical for the future legitimacy of the American government after the 2020 Census.
......
The practical effects of 45's/GOP's fight to count US citizens.
https://theconversation.com/trumps-fight-to-count-us-citizens-and-non-citizens-5-questions-answered-120957by Jeffrey W Ladewig, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut
The U.S. is still months away from the start of the 2020 census – but the decennial count of the country’s population is already controversial.
After the Supreme Court’s decision at the end of June, President Donald Trump conceded that the administration would no longer pursue a citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. Census.
Instead, Trump announced that he signed an executive order instructing the executive branch to share all citizenship data with the U.S. Census. He suggested that the augmented data could be used in the apportionment and redistricting processes.
I have studied and taught how the U.S. apportions seats in Congress and redraws congressional districts for two decades. These topics have been of paramount importance to democratic representation since, at least, the founding of the U.S. And both are critical for the future legitimacy of the American government after the 2020 Census.
......
July 30, 2019
According to press accounts, all of the Democratic contenders taking the stage this week rank on a spectrum of more or less “liberal.”
They don’t.
While most are liberal, two or three are leftist, not liberal. It’s important that voters start distinguishing between those terms because the primary presents them a stark choice between the two.
Leftism and liberalism are distinct political categories with different histories. Understanding the problem of fusing them requires a quick tour of British history from around 1845 to 1980 with just a few stops along the way to the U.S. in 2019.
......
Interesting article and well worth reading.
The difference between 'left' and 'liberal' and why voters need to know.
https://theconversation.com/the-difference-between-left-and-liberal-and-why-voters-need-to-know-120273According to press accounts, all of the Democratic contenders taking the stage this week rank on a spectrum of more or less “liberal.”
They don’t.
While most are liberal, two or three are leftist, not liberal. It’s important that voters start distinguishing between those terms because the primary presents them a stark choice between the two.
Leftism and liberalism are distinct political categories with different histories. Understanding the problem of fusing them requires a quick tour of British history from around 1845 to 1980 with just a few stops along the way to the U.S. in 2019.
......
Interesting article and well worth reading.
July 21, 2019
(original story on The Daily Beast is behind a paywall)
....
According to Brad Miller, who represented North Carolina in Congress between 2003 and 2013, the way in which former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment was handled — and the penalty he eventually received — is a road map for legal retaliation even if Democrats in Congress won’t do it.
Pointing out the numerous lawyers in the Trump administration who have refused to comply with subpoenas and answer lawmaker’s questions, Miller suggests formal complaints can be lodged with the Bar that can lead to disciplinary action or even disbarment.
....
According to the ex-lawmaker, a referral to the Bar need not come from Congress — it can come from anyone.
“Who can file a grievance with the District of Columbia Bar,” he wrote. “All God’s children. Members of the House OGR [Oversight] Committee can; the lawyers in the citizenship question lawsuit can; anyone can.”
***********
This includes going after AG Barr who is licensed in Virginia
A great way to hobble 45 is by going after his attorneys.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/heres-how-lawyers-enabling-trumps-obstruction-can-have-their-livelihoods-stripped-from-them-by-anyone/(original story on The Daily Beast is behind a paywall)
....
According to Brad Miller, who represented North Carolina in Congress between 2003 and 2013, the way in which former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment was handled — and the penalty he eventually received — is a road map for legal retaliation even if Democrats in Congress won’t do it.
Pointing out the numerous lawyers in the Trump administration who have refused to comply with subpoenas and answer lawmaker’s questions, Miller suggests formal complaints can be lodged with the Bar that can lead to disciplinary action or even disbarment.
....
According to the ex-lawmaker, a referral to the Bar need not come from Congress — it can come from anyone.
“Who can file a grievance with the District of Columbia Bar,” he wrote. “All God’s children. Members of the House OGR [Oversight] Committee can; the lawyers in the citizenship question lawsuit can; anyone can.”
***********
This includes going after AG Barr who is licensed in Virginia
July 21, 2019
If you were told by a MAGAt to leave if you don't like it, how would you respond?
My response would go something like this; "If you didn't think America was great when you voted in Nov/2016, why didn't you leave then?
July 12, 2019
...
But as Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe warned, the fight is not over. In fact, the seeds of Trump’s next, and possibly even worse, scheme to rig American democracy was hidden in Trump’s announcement of his alternate proposal for collecting citizenship data.
“Some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population,” said Trump. “Indeed, the same day the Supreme Court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions, which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility.”
This meaning is clear: Trump’s purpose in collecting citizenship data is to encourage states to draw districts based on the “voter eligible population,” rather than the total population, which is historically how every state has done so. As Tribe explained, the consequences of that could be huge:
...
Evenwel v. Abbott was a Supreme Court decision in 2015, in which the justices unanimously ruled that it is constitutional for states to use the total population in legislative apportionment. Crucially though, the court did not rule that it was mandatory to do so — and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote that they believe states are free to choose to only count eligible voters if they wish. All of this hints that if GOP-controlled states decide to take up Trump on his suggestion and only count eligible voters for district lines, the federal courts will not stand in their way.
...
Harvard's Laurence Tribe says the census fight is not over.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/harvard-laws-laurence-tribe-warns-the-census-fight-isnt-over-heres-the-new-way-trump-wants-to-rig-elections-for-a-decade/...
But as Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe warned, the fight is not over. In fact, the seeds of Trump’s next, and possibly even worse, scheme to rig American democracy was hidden in Trump’s announcement of his alternate proposal for collecting citizenship data.
“Some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population,” said Trump. “Indeed, the same day the Supreme Court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions, which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility.”
This meaning is clear: Trump’s purpose in collecting citizenship data is to encourage states to draw districts based on the “voter eligible population,” rather than the total population, which is historically how every state has done so. As Tribe explained, the consequences of that could be huge:
...
Evenwel v. Abbott was a Supreme Court decision in 2015, in which the justices unanimously ruled that it is constitutional for states to use the total population in legislative apportionment. Crucially though, the court did not rule that it was mandatory to do so — and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote that they believe states are free to choose to only count eligible voters if they wish. All of this hints that if GOP-controlled states decide to take up Trump on his suggestion and only count eligible voters for district lines, the federal courts will not stand in their way.
...
July 11, 2019
This is some scary shit.
"Tropical Storm Barry" photos and maps
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/here-are-10-photos-and-maps-that-will-freak-you-out-about-tropical-storm-barry-headed-for-new-orleans/This is some scary shit.
July 9, 2019
Federal Judge blocks DOJ attorneys from fleeing 2020 Census case after losing at the Supreme Court
Source: RawStory
On Monday, the DOJ attempted to bring in an entirely new slate of attorneys.
Judge Jesse Furman rejected almost all of the attempted move during an order released on Tuesday.
The judge said the motion by the DOJ was “patently deficient,” except in the case of two attorneys who were allowed to leave the case as they no longer work for the DOJ.
“Defendants provide no reason, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons’ for the substitution of counsel,” Furman wrote in his order.
Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/federal-judge-blocks-doj-attorneys-from-fleeing-2020-census-case-after-losing-at-the-supreme-court/
June 30, 2019
A group of more than two dozen national security experts authored a white-paper to warn that Russia is operating in a “zero-sum world view” where it isn’t enough that Russia wins, the United States also has to lose.
Axios reported Sunday on the Pentagon report saying Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “grand strategy” for world dominance means taking down the United States.
“Contrary to conventional analysis, after two decades under Vladimir Putin, Russia represents an ideological challenge to the West, not just a political and military rivalry,” the Pentagon report explained. “Although NATO continues to possess impressive overmatch against Moscow, that edge is dwindling, and Western vulnerabilities in certain military areas are alarming. Moreover, the unwillingness of Western experts and governments to confront the ideological — as well as political and military — aspects of our rivalry with Putinism means that the threat of significant armed conflict is rising.”
............
I have no words.
Useful IDIOT!
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/pentagon-report-reveals-putins-path-to-world-dominance-requires-taking-down-the-united-states/A group of more than two dozen national security experts authored a white-paper to warn that Russia is operating in a “zero-sum world view” where it isn’t enough that Russia wins, the United States also has to lose.
Axios reported Sunday on the Pentagon report saying Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “grand strategy” for world dominance means taking down the United States.
“Contrary to conventional analysis, after two decades under Vladimir Putin, Russia represents an ideological challenge to the West, not just a political and military rivalry,” the Pentagon report explained. “Although NATO continues to possess impressive overmatch against Moscow, that edge is dwindling, and Western vulnerabilities in certain military areas are alarming. Moreover, the unwillingness of Western experts and governments to confront the ideological — as well as political and military — aspects of our rivalry with Putinism means that the threat of significant armed conflict is rising.”
............
I have no words.
Profile Information
Name: DoloresGender: Female
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: California
Member since: Thu Nov 30, 2017, 02:58 PM
Number of posts: 5,063
