HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » turbinetree » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 430 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri May 30, 2014, 02:30 PM
Number of posts: 14,180

Journal Archives

Roberts admonishes House prosecution, White House defense

31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts drew little attention to himself in the beginning 12 hours of his first impeachment trial. But it was just before 1 a.m., as tempers on the floor had started to wear thin, that he reminded senators, House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s defense team who was in charge.

“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said, after a particularly tense exchange between House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and the president’s lawyers.

Roberts asked them to “avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”

He did not say what prompted his comments, but they came after Nadler told senators that voting to deny certain witnesses in the trial, as many GOP senators had, was a “treacherous vote” and a vote against the United States. Trump’s defense team then said Nadler should be embarrassed and should apologize to the president and the American people.


Every Republican senator voted 11 times to block a fair trial

By Emily Singer -January 22, 2020 9:32 AM

Republicans blocked a series of proposals that would have allowed for witness testimony and documentary evidence in Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

Witness testimony and documentary evidence is not guaranteed to be allowed in the impeachment trial against Donald Trump, after almost every Senate Republican blocked nearly a dozen Democratic proposals to do just that.

Democrats were seeking to amend Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's impeachment trial rules package, which does not allow for witnesses nor documents to be part of the trial until after the House impeachment managers make their arguments.

Even then, the Democratic House impeachment managers would need to convince four Republican senators to break from their party and vote to allow for the documents and witnesses the managers want — a tough hurdle.

In total, Democrats proposed 11 amendments to McConnell's rules. And almost every Republican blocked every single one. (Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins voted for one of the Democratic amendments, which would have allowed for "additional time to file responses to motions."



Otherwise, all 53 Senate Republicans blocked the 10 other amendments, which would have:

Subpoenaed relevant White House documents and records;
Subpoenaed relevant State Department documents and records;
Subpoenaed relevant documents and records from the Office of Management and Budget;
Subpoenaed certain Defense Department documents and records;
Subpoenaed testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton, who was reportedly against the effort to block military aid to Ukraine, calling it a "drug deal";
Subpoenaed testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was a key figure in the Ukrainian scheme;
Subpoenaed testimony from Mulvaney aide Robert Blair and OMB official Michael Duffey, who were also privy to the Ukraine military aid hold;

Prevented "the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials"; and
Let the House impeachment managers out motions in order for witnesses and documents after they present their case and receive questions from senators.

Every Republican senator also voted to block was an amendment that sought "impartial justice" by allowing Chief Justice John Roberts to "rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents." Roberts, in his role as chief justice of the Supreme Court, presides over the impeachment trial.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump spreads distortions at Davos

23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump spread distorted information about the U.S. economy and his administration’s involvement with historically black colleges in a preening performance Tuesday at the Davos economic conference in the Swiss Alps.

A sampling of his remarks:

TRUMP, on historically black colleges and universities: “I saved HBCUs. We saved them. They were going out and we saved them.”

THE FACTS: That’s a big stretch.

Trump signed a law in December restoring money that lapsed for several months when Congress failed to reauthorize some $255 million in financing on time. The money came back because Senate education leaders reached a compromise on a broader dispute that had entangled financing for black schools.


Two things came to mind when I read this article, his lies are up to around 16,000 and counting and the senate republican cover-up is in the works, so he jets off to look like a complete ass....................again
And why would anyone stand near or up with someone who has been Impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.............I keep forgetting most of these assholes own the world.......................and then there is that asshole Wibur Ross staring at the camera................................

No Begging Or Pleading -- It's Senate Republicans Who Are On Trial

By Josh Marshall
January 21, 2020 4:59 a.m.

You’ve probably now read about Mitch McConnell’s cover-up plan for a Senate impeachment trial. It’s outrageous and Democrats should fight it tooth and nail. But this is an important moment to remember just who is on trial. President Trump is obviously guilty. The President’s trial briefs concede as much — stating baldly the none of the alleged offenses are impeachable even if proven. It’s always been Senate Republicans who are on trial.

We know what Trump did. What remains to be seen is whether Senate Republicans will back his behavior. Monday evening we got a big part of the answer.

When we say that it’s Senate Republicans who are on trial, that’s not just rhetoric or wordplay. It’s the reality and understanding it is a guide to political action.

I’ve already seen a number of statements from Senate Democrats “hoping” that “Republican moderates” will force McConnell to backtrack. This is all wrong, not least because it prospectively credits the good faith of these supposed “moderates” who are in fact operating as McConnell’s foot soldiers in shutting the trial down. In other words, this is vouching for the good faith and good intentions of senators who deserve to be driven from office in November. Start making the case against them right now. If any of them think they are unfairly accused the solution is ready at hand.


Here are the rules Mitch McConnell has laid out for the Senate impeachment trial

Published 43 mins ago on January 20, 2020
By Matthew Chapman

On Monday, CNN obtained the draft of the rules proposed for impeachment by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

According to the rules, both sides must present opening arguments and evidence within two days each, in a total of 24 hours of total arguments, which is a much stricter requirement than the rules during the Clinton impeachment. This will likely mean much of the debate will have to go into the night if the House managers want to use their full time to argue their case.

At the end of the two presentations, will be 16 hours of questions. There will be no motion to dismiss after that, as in the Clinton impeachment rules, but there will then be four hours and an up or down vote to allow witnesses or documents — a concession made to Republicans like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who had been pushing for such language.

It is unclear yet whether Democrats will propose amendments to this resolution.


So Murkowski and Collins wanted 16 fucking hours ................................and that is all..........................and then a fucking up or down vote.........................to think if there should be witnesses.....................

November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough.........................

GOP senator hides from constituents for 791 days straight

By Dan Desai Martin -January 20, 2020 5:00 PM

Colorado's Cory Gardner is considered one of the most vulnerable senators in the country facing reelection in 2020.

It has been nearly 800 days since Republican Sen. Cory Gardner held an in-person town hall with his Colorado constituents, with no indication he will hold one anytime soon.

Gardner is a top target of Democrats hoping to gain control of the Senate in 2020, and he is facing reelection in a state that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and elected Democrats to every statewide position in 2018.

According to the Colorado Times Recorder, Gardner last held a town hall on Nov. 20, 2017, which was 791 days ago. A Monday New York Times report noted Gardner has no upcoming town halls listed on his Facebook page.

Gardner is avoiding his constituents despite facing a high-profile reelection in roughly 10 months. Gardner's approval rating in the state is only 37%, with a slightly higher percentage of Coloradans disapproving of his job performance (40%), according to a recent Morning Consult poll. Gardner is regularly listed as one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country.


Since he like's to hide, maybe someone can catch him the halls of the senate and and ask what he thinks of the fucking new rules that his party wants and that #Moscow Mitch wants for the "trial".......................

As Citizens United Turns 10, We Need to Fight to Get Money Out of Politics

Tiffany Muller, Inequality.org
January 19, 2020

Ten years ago this week, the Supreme Court released its disastrous 2010 Citizens United decision.

The court, either through remarkable naivety or sheer malevolence, essentially married two terrible ideas: that “money equals speech” and that “corporations are people.” The ruling put a for sale sign on our democracy, opening up a flood of corporate, special interest, and even foreign money into our politics.

Through Citizens United and a collection of other terrible and related decisions, the Court made a bad situation worse. We saw the proliferation of super PACs, which can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, and the rise of dark money, which is undisclosed political spending that can come from any special interest, even foreign countries.

In the 10 years since the decision, there’s been $4.5 billion in outside spending (spending from outside interest groups and not candidates for office) in elections, compared to $750 million spent in the 20 years prior to the case. From 2000-2008, there were only 15 federal races where outside spending exceeded candidate spending. In the same amount of time following Citizens United, this occurred in 126 races. Since the decision, almost half of all outside spending is dark money that has no or limited disclosure of its donors.

And that money is not coming from the farmers suffering through Donald Trump’s trade war or the fast-food workers fighting for a living wage. It’s coming from the wealthiest among us, people often with very different priorities than the majority of Americans. In fact, a full one-fifth of all super PAC donations in the past 10 years have come from just 11 people.


I think I will re-read......................... Dark Money by Jane Mayer

11 people ..............................

The Multinational Trying to Bankrupt the Dock Workers Union Has a Sordid Past

Ari Paul, In These Times
January 19, 2020

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is facing an existential crisis

Founded by the militant labor icon Harry Bridges, the ILWU has made a name for itself as the take-no-crap West Coast dockers union, one that has engaged in work stoppages and other tactics both to protect their jobs and benefits, but also to oppose war and racism.

A federal jury in Portland, Oregon granted a $93.6 million penalty in November against the union to the American subsidiary of the Philippines-based International Container Terminal Services (ICTSI), which formerly operated the Portland terminal. The back story is a complicated one about union jurisdiction. In 2012, the local ILWU began a series of work slowdowns over two jobs that involved handling refrigerated containers (as well as electrical equipment related to those containers) that the union believed were wrongly being put outside of the ILWU’s collective bargaining agreement. Instead, these two port jobs were represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). ICTSI sued the ILWU, claiming the industrial action was an illegal secondary boycott and that years of battling the union had taken financial toil on the company. The jury sided with ICTSI.

The ILWU has $8 million in assets, according to its most recent Department of Labor filing (Local 8, the local involved in the suit, has $386,000 in total assets, according to its DOL filing). Needless to say, the award, if upheld by the judge in proceedings in February, will almost certainly lead to bankruptcy for the union.

While officials say that this would not be the end of the union necessarily, the restructuring of the union would likely cramp its ability to administer the business of representing and organizing workers. The union’s president, Willie Adams, said in a message in the union’s newspaper, the Dispatcher, “We’re hoping that the Court will review the verdict and explore a different outcome—one that is more fair and consistent with the evidence. If that doesn’t happen, there’s a possibility that we may seek protection in federal court to re-organize our finances under protections allowed by the federal bankruptcy court. While nobody wants to take this step, it may be the best way to protect the ILWU and to allow us to return to sound financial footing as quickly as possible.”


This case reminds me of the issue that happened with tuna fishing , dolphins and Mexico..........................

GOP state lawmaker wants to let cops detain anyone they think might commit a crime

Source: American Independent

By Josh Israel -January 20, 2020 1:58 PM

A proposed bill would allow police to demand information and ID from anyone they deem suspicious and detain and question them for up to two hours.

A Kentucky Republican lawmaker is proposing a controversial bill that would allow police to question anyone they "reasonably" believe has committed or may soon commit a crime and detain them for up to two hours.

SB 89, filed last week by state Sen. Stephen Meredith (R), would change state law to let any "peace officer" in a public place demand the name, address, date of birth, and government-issue ID from anyone they reasonably deem "has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."

If the person does not provide the requested information and an explanation for their actions, the officer could detain, question, and investigate them for as long as two hours without officially recording any of the incident.

Meredith did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the bill, but told the Lexington Herald-Leader, "If a man acts suspicious, then why wouldn’t you want to know what his name is?"

Read more: https://americanindependent.com/kentucky-gop-police-detention-bill-stephen-meredith-republicans/


So in the Kentucky legislature............................they have and are deciding to just basically say to hell with the 4th amendment..................

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So the "probable cause".................... words....................are......... he said so, you must be, and you said ......................

What could possibly go wrong..........................fascism is still fascism...................and lets not even go down the road that if you didn't do anything wrong mentality, ..................that's an excuse...........

Chief Justice John Roberts is far from the impartial savior Democrats are hoping he'll be: PBS host

Published 1 min ago on January 19, 2020
By Sarah K. Burris

During an MSNBC panel discussion Sunday evening, Alexander Heffner, PBS host of “The Open Mind,” cautioned against putting faith in Chief Justice John Roberts.

In an interview with Rev. Al Sharpton, Heffner outlined why Roberts’ impartiality isn’t exactly what Democrats think it is.

“But I’m tired of hearing about Chief Justice Roberts impartiality, this idea that he’s some kind of paragon of constitutional order,” Heffner said. “The proof is in the pudding. The reality is this Supreme Court had an opportunity to review the cases about whether the public should have access to Trump’s business and personal tax returns, whether the public should have the testimony of [John] Bolton and company.”

He noted that in those cases, the High Court refused to give a decision in a timely manner. If they had released a decision on whether the White House can ignore a subpoena, Roberts likely wouldn’t be put in this position.


I keep thinking what this "guy" (Roberts) did to voting rights and then ruling that money is free speech.......................
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 430 Next »